Views » May 31, 2005

Jesus, Is This News?

Email this article to a friend

Blinded by their own erroneous news frame that the last election was all about "moral values," the news media are devoting more airtime to everything Jesus.

No matter how much columnists and media critics bemoan the sorry state of American journalism, no matter how low the press sinks in the estimation of the American people, the news media, particularly on television, remains defiantly abysmal. Now, on top of the usual toxic doses of runaway brides, irrelevant celebrity trials and President Bush holding hands with Crown Prince Abdullah, we have the rise of Jesus News.

Blinded by their own erroneous news frame that the last election was all about “moral values,” and pressured to give religion more coverage by an evangelical right running on methamphetamines, the news media are devoting more airtime to everything Jesus.

The ghoulish death watch of Pope Paul John II (“Is he dead yet?” “No, Bob, not dead yet, back to you.”) hogged nearly an hour of total news time on the three networks from March 28-April 1, and his death and funeral preparations garnered 129 minutes of network news attention the following week, making it the year’s third biggest story so far. By contrast, that same week, Tom Delay’s ethics problems received four minutes of coverage on ABC and CBS combined, and none on NBC. By the week of April 18-22, when the networks devoted 37 minutes to the Conclave of Cardinals (“Is the smoke white or black, Bob?”) and another 32 minutes to the election of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger as the new pope, one might have thought Catholicism had become our state religion.

The week of May 2, ABC news inaugurated a series called “Under God,” about how conservative Christians are “searching for new ways to make their mark on popular culture.” First up was a story about Christian cheerleading camps, and the next day a story about how Christians like to spank their kids. By the time Thursday’s episode, “Faith and Fashion Under God” aired, one sensed that some at ABC had been a bit hoodwinked. Here we learned that “a growing number of people, especially young people, are proudly wearing their beliefs.” Cut to a picture of the campy baseball cap that has a picture of Jesus on it and reads, “Jesus is my Homeboy.”

My daughter has that cap; so do quite a few of her friends. They have it because they find it hilarious and irreverent. It is the ironic juxtaposition of hip hop slang with evangelism that they love; the last thing they are doing is “wearing their beliefs.”

And then there’s Fox News. It routinely traffics in interviews with folks like the Reverend Franklin Graham, whose newsworthy pronouncements include “Jesus … came to this Earth to take sinners and save us from our sins … [we need to] receive Christ by faith.” Fox is the platform from which James Dobson of Focus on the Family can accuse Democratic Senators of being, well, the infidel. Not be outdone, NBC’s “Dateline” with Stone Phillips had a story about an exorcism to rid a man of demons.

What are we to make of the rise of Jesus news? Yes, it is indeed important to know what the religious right is up to, especially as they seek to pack the courts with Jesus freaks, outlaw the teaching of evolution, reverse decades of environmental regulation because “the rapture” is just around the corner, and suppress free speech and academic freedom on college campuses by charging that evangelical students are “silenced’ and “harassed” and thus should be able to sue.

But that’s not the detailed coverage we’re getting, at least not on TV. Instead, Jesus news embezzles time away from stories people really need to hear, like much more detailed coverage of the Bush/Republican energy bill, which got a total of six minutes of coverage from all three networks when it passed the house the week of April 18.

Not to mention local news. Here in Michigan, we are contemplating, and not without bitterness, the famous 1955 quotation from Charlie Wilson who said of his company “What’s good for General Motors is good for the rest of America.” In that year, GM sold over half of the cars purchased in the United States. Today, GM has been downgraded to junk bond status. The company’s arrogant, willful myopia, which has kept it producing gas-guzzling, poorly designed, undesirable cars, could very well lead to a major fiscal disaster in Michigan and elsewhere. But except for the business pages, (and the Detroit News and Free Press), this has not gotten near the attention that the religious invocations used at NASCAR rallies has.

The parade of evangelicals on TV exaggerates the numbers of these folks and makes them seem much more influential than they are–or certainly should be. Rather than clones of the Christian Broadcasting Network, we need solid, investigative work about the money, organizations and, indeed, the cynicism behind all of these crusading efforts to turn our country into a giant Bible camp.

Susan J. Douglas is a professor of communications at the University of Michigan and an In These Times columnist. Her latest book is Enlightened Sexism: The Seductive Message That Feminism's Work is Done (2010).

ok,whew thanks!I was afraid the thought police were here!Posted by Kaw Valley Kid on 2005-09-22 08:36:50

kaw,
your comment is on the previous page. You'll have to go into the archives to find it, apparently.Posted by luminous beauty on 2005-09-22 06:32:25

how strange,I just got an email saying someone replied to my comment.but when I come here I don't find MY comment! Was it deleted?anyone know?Posted by Kaw Valley Kid on 2005-09-21 18:53:08

jomo,
I think I basically agree with the apparent general intent of your observations, but I don't think you are reading this thread too clearly. Take a couple of deep breaths, focus your mind and try again.Posted by luminous beauty on 2005-09-21 16:03:04

whether we know it or not or whether we allow it to abide in our spirit or not. It is, was, and always will be here.
How do you know this?
All one need do is let go of onePosted by jomo on 2005-09-16 15:01:01

APF,
If spirit pervades all reality then it is pervasive in human consciousness, whether we know it or not or whether we allow it to abide in our spirit or not. It is, was, and always will be here. It neither comes closer, nor moves farther away. It's nature is no different from our nature. Our nature is completely derived from the undivided nature of spirit. Spirit is the ocean from which these teeny momentary drops of awareness emerge and to which they inevitably return.
The only separation from spirit is in clinging to the belief of separate natures. All one need do is let go of one's unwholesome belief and reality will be revealed for what it simply is. Much easier to say than do, no?Posted by luminous beauty on 2005-09-16 04:41:59

Sorry,I should have read further! I got excited,I see that this has been covered!Posted by Kaw Valley Kid on 2005-09-02 14:02:02

APF wrote:Every success in an organization can very easily be linked to a good manager. So also the complexity and beauty of life can only be explained by a supernatural manager and HIM I call God. The Bible comes nearest to explain who that God is in comparison to all others. That mikmik was born when a certain sperm from his father and a certain egg from his mother came together without a hand guiding that Posted by Kaw Valley Kid on 2005-09-02 13:50:20

We apparently have different understandings of what is Posted by APF on 2005-07-30 04:57:27

APF;
We apparently have different understandings of what is 'spirit'. My understanding is that spirit pervades all of reality, not merely some personal possession specially given by God only to humans, and thus, in jeopardy of being taken away. Spirit may be said to be the nature of interconnectedness of all things. It is manifest in the relations of living beings, whether for good or ill. It is manifest in our material and non-material being. It is everywhere, always and without cessation.
What makes us different from the animals is that aspect of our intelligence that allows us to discriminate one thing from another. We become accustomed to thinking in this manner, causing us to believe that our selves are some kind of separate atomistic entities. This state of selfishness is what is overcome when we awaken to our true spiritual nature, which never abandons us no matter how wrapped in ignorance we may become.
When this happens, wisdom, compassion and sacred love arise spontaneously in our hearts and minds.
I say this not because I believe it or have read it in books or have been told so by teachers (although let me express here my deep and sincere gratitude for the scriptures, teachers and good fortune that have guided me on my path), but because I have experienced it. It is my wish that you should have that adamantine experience, tam bien.Posted by luminous beauty on 2005-07-18 14:11:21

What is of primary importance is what one does with onePosted by APF on 2005-07-12 09:20:18

AFP said "I’m not confused."
Well, you can't prove that you are not, you only have opinion on the matter.
One of the most foundational tenents in logic, is that just because you cannot prove something, does not mean it is therefore true.
This has already been explained, and it is explained on almost every philosophy site, critical thinking site, explanation of fallacious thinking site. That you keep using the same arguement over and over, even though it is patently invalid, is strong evidence that you are confused.
It has been explained that you have to prove their is a God, not demend refutation for the burden is yours.
Tell, me, do you think people would not love to believe in God? I sure as hell wish there was a God, it is insane to not want one. I am not saying your view of god, I think that is insane as well, but that is just my opinion, I know you don't agree, no need to argue.
But what possible reason in the imagination would compell a person to not believe in God if they really thought is made sense?
If your views made logical sense, do you not think more than 3% (or whatever the number of Fundamentalist Christians there is worldwide) of people would submit?Posted by mikmik on 2005-07-09 20:04:01

It's incredible what logic can produce unanchored to reality. The Bible is the 'statements of others' and God is unknown as long as he is considered other. This poem by Rumi may help to understand this difficult point:
What is to be done, O Moslems? for I do not recognize myself.
I am neither Christian, nor Jew, nor Gabr [Magian], nor Moslem.
I am not of the East, nor of the West, nor of the land, nor of the sea;
I am not of Nature's mint, nor of the circling heavens.
I am not of earth, nor of water, nor of air, nor of fire;
I am not of the empyrean, nor of the dust, nor of existence, nor of
entity.
I am not of India, nor of China, nor of Bulghar, nor of Saqsin;
I am not of the kingdom of Iraqain, nor of the country of Khurasan.
I am not of this world, nor of the next, nor of Paradise, nor of Hell;
I am not of Adam, nor of Eve, nor of Eden and Rizwan.
My place is the Placeless, my trace is the Traceless;
'Tis neither body nor soul, for I belong to the soul of the Beloved.
I have put duality away, I have seen that the two worlds are one;
One I seek, One I know, One I see, One I call.
He is the first, He is the lest, He is the outward, He is the inward;
I know none other except "Ya Hu" and "Ya man Hu".
I am intoxicated with Love's cup, the two worlds have passed out of my
ken;
I have no business save carouse and revelry.
If once in my life I spent a moment without you,
From that time and from that hour I repent of my life.
If once in this world I win a moment with you,
I will trample on both worlds, I will dance in triumph for ever.
O Shamsi Tabriz, I am so drunken in this world,
That except of drunkenness and revelry I have no tale to tell.
If you would simply see reality as it is unencumbered by belief, you will understand the question of the existence or non-existence of God is a vain one; in both meanings of the word. What is of primary importance is what one does with one's present life and let the after-life be. This is in no way intended to mean you should abandon your belief if it does in fact, as you say, aid you in overcoming selfishness and not just give your ego a righteous sheen; just a suggestion to recognize that belief is inferior to certain knowledge transcending mere words, names, and labels.
Twain's intent was ironic. As he told a woman who said to him 'God bless you, Mr. Twain'; 'Madam, you apparently haven't heard of our estrangement'. Twain was an atheist. You aren't the first Christian who has misunderstood that. To understand more fully read his essay 'The Damned Human Race'.
I hope you will continue this discussion, however I can't promise prompt replies, as work will soon be taking me on the road for the summer.Posted by luminous beauty on 2005-07-09 12:13:02

Oh! Yes! Your argument for the existence of God is a perfectly unintentional restatement of Mark Twain’s ‘argument’ for the existence of God; “If God didn’t exist, Mankind would’ve had to invent Him.”
Posted by luminous beauty on July 5, 2005 at 3:42 PM
________________________________________________
Luminous beauty,
You force me to respond!
God does exist, so no need of mankind to invent him. I hope you understand that Mark Twain intended to say exactly that. However I do not take recourse to the statements of others to uphold my own beliefs. What I believe firmly , I justify with sheer logic. To prove that God exists is easy since he has left his signature on so much of his creation. To prove that he does not is impossible. Try and prove that he does not exist and you will land up with many contradictions. You try to prove that he does not exist and I will point out the absurdities in any such arguments. Let this be a one to one conversation between me and you. We will just neglect the comments for or against from any one else so that we are on course.Posted by APF on 2005-07-09 08:37:24

Oh! Yes! Your argument for the existence of God is a perfectly unintentional restatement of Mark Twain's 'argument' for the existence of God; "If God didn't exist, Mankind would've had to invent Him."Posted by luminous beauty on 2005-07-05 13:42:25

AFP;
"Luminous beauty,
This is the last time I am addressing to you. Its just not worth the time. I find you quoting so many unrelated quotes that you seem to be more confused than anyone in the universe."
I'm not confused. It may be you don't understand. I have no difficulty understanding the Bible or Jesus or Christian metaphysics or your soteriological desire. It is the theme of the Mystical Union common to all religions and spiritual traditions. That you prefer the Christian version is your prerogative. It is just that I have outgrown that particular spiritual stage of clinging to explanations of reality whether God centered or not.
Reality is what it is and all explanations fall short of perfect description. The simple truth is there is no fundamental division between you and reality. All that you need to experience that truth you have always possessed. It is not in the Bible or the Gita or Science or Philosophy. It is within you right here and now. It is that simple. It is not that easy.
My quotes (there are only three in my last post. The first four are a single source concerning overcoming hatred. The other two are explicitly about defilement.) They are all related to the subject of wisdom and the somewhat less than generous rhetoric of this conversation.
If you don't wish to respond, that's OK.Posted by luminous beauty on 2005-07-05 12:21:26

BTW, it is painfully obvious the egg came firast, that is how evolution works. The bird that was one gene away from being a chicken layed an egg with the mutaton, or genetic combination, that we call a chicken. That could not, and does not, happen in a fully functional adult bird, the DNA is determined when the zygote is formed.
Or if you wish a different interpretation to the question, egg laying creatures far preceeded chickens.
Where did God come from, I fulfilled my side of the bargain. It was too easy, i knew it when I was 15 years old.
Where did God come from, APF. Remember, don't tell me, get it on the news so you reach more people.Posted by mikmik on 2005-07-05 12:16:10

Yawn... I know APF. That is some thing you are absolutely incapable of understanding, is that I have heard all this before over and over.
Guess what, it don't make sense the first time, it don't make sense any time.
It is your shear ignorance of my right to my opinion and your sanctimonious presumption that you alone posess the insight to see the truth that betrays the opposite, your shallowness.
could care les about the bleating of a sheep, your week cries are repeated by the whole flock in perpetuity.
This is why your type is dangerous, and Christianity of your type, and people of your ilk would trample our rights to independent thought.The less attention you get, the better for you cannot even understand the simple concept that others are entitled to their own thoughts and beliefs, and no one has a right to impose their world views and philosophy on another.
Where did God come from? C'mon, you don't think evolution is possible, yet you think a complete god, far more complex that man, evolved spontaneously out of nothing?
Where did God come from? Do't tell me, I could not care about your answer because you will just repeat the same tripe over and over as if that makes for truth. Tell a reporter, if you make sense, you will be famous and convert millions of people.
Now, go do your job and save a few million souls. Tell us where God came from.
If the universe couldn't always be here, then God couldn't. If the universe is complex, then God is more complex.
So, where, APF, he couldn't just 'always' have been here, huh? Where did he come from?Posted by mikmik on 2005-07-05 12:06:21

BTW, bone up on your inductive logic. Because you think the universe is like a business, does not mean it is the same in all respects, ie - needs a manager.
Posted by mikmik on July 4, 2005 at 1:19 PM
______________________________________________
Well dear mikmik, if something as simple as business requires a manager to succeed, then something as complex as the universe will definitely need an infinitely more intelligent and more able manager isn't it? And I don't think that any human being can qualify for that. I call that infinitely capable genius mananger as God. Now let me see how you can explain in a better manner the infinite complexity of the universe. Science and Mathematics has proved that the elliptical orbits of planets round their respective suns can be explained by the simple law of gravity: that two masses separated by a distance pull each other with a gravitational force proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance separating them(if I remember my physics and mathematics properly) It is by this simple law that you can show by simple mathematics that the orbit of a planet round its sun has to be an elliptical orbit. Now my question is: What makes gravity to follow that law? There has to be a master who made gravity to follow that law. If you can answer that simple question by any other means except a infinitely superior brain compared to ours, I will answer your question: Where did God come from?. The fact is that there are so many questions that even the best human minds cannot answer e.g. the egg first or the chicken? The only right answer to it is : "I don't know" . Similarly my answer to the question : Where did God come from is : "I don't know". Yes only God can answer that. However the fact that you cannot answer a question because your mind is finite and you cannot understand with your mind the infinite, does not mean that that the subject of that question does not exist. If that were so, then you have not seen atoms have you, but you know that there are atoms simply because of so many laws of nature that can be explained only if the existence of atoms is assumed. So also so many laws of nature can be explained only if the existence of God is assumed to be true. I am totally incapable of giving you any more explanation for this. Please accept my apologies if I have been rude sometimes in addressing you. But I do get very angry on people who try to understand things which cannot be clearly explained and I lose patience with such people who say these things cannot exist. Anyway this is the last time I am writing on this bulletin because all good things have to end. I hope we have learnt some things from each other and I certainly hope you will begin to believe in God and then searching for him find him and gain everlasting joy. And if you are honest in your search , your search will end in JESUS who is God who came in the flesh to save those in the flesh from the power of sin and death. By dying , he paid the price for our sin and by rising from the dead he proved that all of us who believe in him will rise to everlasting bliss in heaven and those that don't will also rise, but to everlasting torment in hellPosted by APF on 2005-07-05 09:20:07

Mikmik,
Great at last you believe that there is an afterlife. Well I will accept your apologies with great joy at that time, for you will not have a chance to come out of that place that God has prepared for those who ridicule him. It is an eternal dwelling for those who poke fun at him.
Where did God come from? Well idiot answer this simple question if you can : Did the chicken come first or the egg? If you can answer that then I will think you worthy of having an answer to that weighty question: Where did God come from? Else forget it , you will never even begin to understand the "G" of God. So no need to get any further!!!Posted by APF on 2005-07-05 08:27:43

Mikmik,
By blowing your top you are not going to prove that either you are logical or you are sane.
Correct
That God exists is more easier to believe than that strange theory that the universe was created by the big bang.
Sure, whatever you say. Where did god come from?
BTW, bone up on your inductive logic. Because you think the universe is like a business, does not mean it is the same in all respects, ie - needs a manager.
And that is Mr idiot to you, ASF. Have a good afterlife, I will apologize for being wrong then.Posted by mikmik on 2005-07-04 11:19:33

Luminous beauty,
This is the last time I am addressing to you. Its just not worth the time. I find you quoting so many unrelated quotes that you seem to be more confused than anyone in the universe.
God is proved in the numerous complex things we see around us. You don't require binoculars to find any such thing. There are millions of them around us. Please read carefully what I wrote to your friend mikmik. If you understand what I said there, then you will know that it is much easier to believe that there is God than there isn't. And by the way once a person comes to that conclusion then he has to find out which scripture reveals that God in the best possible manner(you cannot find it from philosophy and quotes). It is by this methodology that I have found God. He is best revealed in the Bible in Jesus. Read for yourself the Hindu Bhagvad Geeta or the Ramayana or the Mahabharata or the Koran or the Jewish Torah and last of all read the New Testament of the Bible and then logically decide which scripture reveals God fully. I strongly believe that the scripture of every religion in the world reveals God to some extent but the fulness of revelation is in Jesus Christ. Its as simple as that but probably you will find it difficult to believe because you will not look at the evidence of God in nature. You will overlook all that and then say there is no God. I think that is the biggest foolishness, overlooking the evidence of God in nature.
Anyway I cannot change your belief nor can you change mine. We will see who is right when the time for it comes and come it will dear whether you like it or not.Posted by APF on 2005-07-04 08:59:39

Mikmik,
By blowing your top you are not going to prove that either you are logical or you are sane. That God exists is more easier to believe than that strange theory that the universe was created by the big bang. It is very similar to believing that in an organization without a manager to lead things would just happen. Idiot, it never occurs that way. Every success in an organization can very easily be linked to a good manager. So also the complexity and beauty of life can only be explained by a supernatural manager and HIM I call God. The Bible comes nearest to explain who that God is in comparison to all others. That mikmik was born when a certain sperm from his father and a certain egg from his mother came together without a hand guiding that "coming together" and the growth that occured afterwards is hard to believe isn't it or do you believe that it was just fluke that brought the two together and you are a product of that fluke. What a pity if that is what you believe about yourself. It is much more logical to believe that a supernatural being with immense wisdom and immense power and potential created every human being. He guides our destiny but he gives us the free will to choose between him and our own ego. That's the simple explanation dear. Now what do you call more logical and more wise to believe: that man was created in a chance combination of chemicals in the right proportion and the in the right environment or that there was an intelligent being in charge of that creation. Think about it yourself and find your own answer. I have found mine. I am created by God, who was just an intelligent being for me, till I read the Bible and came to know him personally. Neither did I find him in Hindu scriptures nor did I find him in Muslim scripture so fully as I found him in the Bible.
Now who is a moron: the one who believes that there is no God and everything in this world came into being just by fluke(call it evolution if you like) or that there is someone who managed all that? I believe from my own personal experience in my day to day work at my office that all great projects happen succesfully only because someone plans and someone works to make that plan happen. Nothing happens by fluke. That is the biggest sign of a moron : one who does not believe in God when the sign of his presence is there in every complex thing in the universe. Even the simplest cell in the human body is so complex that it cannot have just come to be. It has to be created by a genius and I call that genius God and that God has revealed himself fully in his son Jesus. Well believe it or disbelieve it and bear the consequences of your own decision. When you finally will know the truth and all will know it whether they like it or not , you will have only yourself to blame for your decision.Posted by APF on 2005-07-04 08:39:22

luminous beauty = "The contenders do not realise that one day we must all die, but those who realise this resolve their quarrels"
Sigh, you are so right. I would also add 'they that relize' value all their moments with passion, and waste them not, but worship every one.
Seems the toughest for after-lifers to comprehend.Posted by mikmik on 2005-07-02 15:42:26

"I know this because I have been a voracious reader and have read wisdom literature of many great minds in the world. But when I learnt about the wisdom in Jesus told by one of his rivals before he was finally converted to accept him as the greatest wisdom( I am referring to Paul in the New Testament Epistles), I really felt that in comparison to Jesus all the rest of the wisdom teachers are as good as nothing(What is a drop in comparison to the ocean!! obviously nothing). I don’t speak through someone else’s experience but use my own mind to be convinced of what is true and what is false. "
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
Who doesn't, moron. Everyone thinks they know what is right, and that is the problem. You are a liar, I do not believe you know philosophers and have read thinkers.I just take your word on it? Maybe you consider Michael Jackson a great mind, for all we know. Don't bother to back up any of your assertions or conclusions, ASF, we believe you (LMFAO! x10)
Yeah, real men don't swear, as if that even has anything to do with anything. Go stare at yourself in the mirror, you just keep proving my point that you are self absorbed. I told you you would. You can't help it.Posted by mikmik on 2005-07-02 15:26:10

APF, I do not have to answer anything, you are to prove that there is a God, and that the Bible is Gods word, and everyone has failed miserably befor you at that, and you repeat the same dead arguements.
I will not fall for your always evading those two points, and I will not answer your qustions, because they are not valid, built on the assumption that there is a God, and the Bible is Gods word.
You prove that first.
BTW, wise men have vision and original insight, you idiot. You sound brainwashed, and I am sick of the media giving any time to your ilk. You do no deserve replies, for you have never answered to the most basic questions asked. Now, leave, you got that?
You can act whatever way you want, but there is no disguising that you have zero basis in any reasoning or logic, and no disguising the fact that you (BAC abd Evangelical Xtians) want to create inequality and force your views on everyone else.
That is the point, ASF, or do you fear staying on that one? you do not have the right to push your brand of morality to the exclusion of others rights to decide for themselves. You understand that ASF? You are the one that violates others rights, that is the point.
And the stupid pidgeons in the media kowtow. I don't.
I am wise, asshole, and I didn't learn it from a storybook, no matter where you think all wisdom originates. It is insight and understanding that begets wisdom, and the ability to empathize. Got it ASF?????
You still don't have the brains to understand the point, you always start to quote the Bible like it was some sort of universally recognized authority.
WRONG. You have to prove that first. See my first post, moron, you have to prove it without assumption, you have to show it without using anything from the bible - you cannot use the bible to prove the bible is Gods word. Do you see that simple logic? ASF?
Try using some logic, and quit playing your simple, deceitful games. We all are tired of the BS.
I have the wisdom (I hope, please forgive me everyone, it is the context I am referring to here LOL) to see where you try to decieve, the wisdom to see where you violate the rights of others, and the wisdom to know that it is time to show anger and quit acting like you fucking Xtians are anything special, especially at the expense of our rights.
That is something I figured out for myself, and it is alright to get angry and let others know it is alright to get angry, and call you evangels liars and tell you are not wanted, and tell you you are insipid in your logic.
It is perfectly alright to get angry for you disrespect our rights to make our own decisions.
I learn a great deal from others, and we know the value of being able to formulate our own thoughts, and reach our own conclusions, to have access to the truth Is paramount so that we may be sure we do the best and touch reality, and are able to share our thoughts. That takes an understanding and appreciation for pure truth and reasoning skills. It is the most important thing in life, and you would deny us that.
You make me sick, ASF, and I could care less if you act calm or sanctimonious, because that is a schtick to avoid the real issue.
Now tell me why you should get more than your share of media attention, and why your views are worthy of being considered at the expense of equality.Posted by mikmik on 2005-07-02 15:13:16

APF;
Thank you for your permission to be myself. I will treasure it.
How is it you evangelize, yet deny you are an evangelist?
What method do you use to discern greater from lesser wisdom?
Here is an example:
"He abused me, he struck me, he robbed me". In those who harbor such thoughts, hatred is not stilled.
"He abused me, he struck me, he subdued me, he robbed me". In those who do not harbor such thoughts, hatred is stilled.
Hatred is never stilled by hatred in this world; by non-hatred alone is hatred stilled. This is the Eternal Law.
The contenders do not realise that one day we must all die, but those who realise this resolve their quarrels.
Can you find the wisdom in these simple words?
What harm does the word 'fuck' do that is worse than slander? I.e., "A foul mouth like you" "the most disgusting people" "insecure little people"
Or these two statements:
There is nothing outside a person that by going in can defile, but the things that come out are what defile.
Stealing, deceiving, adultery; this is defilement. Not the eating of meat.
Which is more wise? Why?Posted by luminous beauty on 2005-07-02 08:35:21

APF, “Once you find this wisdom then you will have no need of any other.”
And you would know this how?
Posted by mikmik on July 2, 2005 at 4:13 AM
-----------------------------------------------
Mikmik,
I know this because I have been a voracious reader and have read wisdom literature of many great minds in the world. But when I learnt about the wisdom in Jesus told by one of his rivals before he was finally converted to accept him as the greatest wisdom( I am referring to Paul in the New Testament Epistles), I really felt that in comparison to Jesus all the rest of the wisdom teachers are as good as nothing(What is a drop in comparison to the ocean!! obviously nothing). I don't speak through someone else's experience but use my own mind to be convinced of what is true and what is false.
By the way, I really pity you for jumping to conclusions about me being an evangelical. I am not. I believe in Jesus and all that he taught only because I have read the Bible and found it like no other book. Even if there was no church and no Christianity, still after reading the Bible I would still accept Jesus as the greater wisdom than all the wisdom of the world put together.
What you believe is up to you and you can very well stay in your beliefs. I speak about what I believe and no one can change that and least of all a foul-mouth like you. I believe that people who use the f-word are the most disgusting people who are very insecure in this world and so use filthy language to intimidate others but they are easily seen for what they are: insecure little people!!! Stop drinking milk and start eating meat man.Posted by APF on 2005-07-02 07:48:11

Luminous beauty,
Since when have babes(who can only babble) start talking about wisdom!!! Leave it alone, it is not your cup of tea. You can continue the way you are!!!Posted by APF on 2005-07-02 07:29:25

APF;
Quit your sinning and become wise. Jesus can't do it for you. You have to do it yourself.Posted by luminous beauty on 2005-07-02 04:34:11

but I also have a country that understands the difference between religion and church
make that religion and government, *blush*Posted by mikmik on 2005-07-02 02:15:02

APF, "Once you find this wisdom then you will have no need of any other."
And you would know this how?
It just boggles my mind how insipid evangelicals are, and cannot fathom in the least their hypocrysy in thinking they have the right answers and no one else does.
One thing I enjoy here in Canada, is that I am eggregiously exposed in excess to US culture, propaganda, and Evangelicanism, but I also have a country that understands the difference between religion and church. Further more, I am able to see and compare the news and views from the rest of the world as compared to the US version.
I feel sorry for you, God, Ryan, ASF, you are the laughing stock off the world. The funny thing is that you go right ahead and behave exactly as you are criticised even in rebuttal, showing nothing but a lack of understanding that you do not even have the ability to think for yourself, that you do not have the basic human skill to see others viewpoints, and you do not see that more people are becomeing more embarrassed by your behavior daily.
Why don't you go pray for the heathens and non christians, we will spend our lives in hell if God wants us to, who the fuck do you think you are to speak for God.
Tell your average Born again christian that taking the lords name in vain means exactly the insult of pretending to speak for the lord, yet they do! Right away!
You can't even agree on what is to be literal and what isn't amongst your own selves, how you going to speak for jesus of all people?
I'll tell you one thing, if anyone every supposed themselves as my spokesman, I would be piussed, and that is pretty much a respect issue.
But you don't even know how to think independendetly for yourselves, yet you profess to know Jesus will??? LMAO, I would not want to be in your shoes on Judgement day, you morons.
If you insist on giving god credit for you, then use your f---ing brain like he supplied you with, and quit being so blatantly simplistic and hypocritical. My word, you are embarrassing to thinking people everywhere.
All i can do is watch you self destruct, for you and the Neo-Cons, employing the brainwashing mechanisms already perfected in evangelical extreme circles, up and use it to manipulate you like a poorly built puppet. But you miss one crucial point.
That is that when you decide to follow doctrine that doesn't make sense, and decide that what you are tpold is the truth, you eventually get to the point where no one knows whick way is up, and you self distruct in a fireball of internal strife, and public ridicule.
I am enjoying it happen as we speak. Try to get out a little more often, okay? You have no idea how bad you look to the vast majority of the worlds people, and even you closest friends and neighboors find your type boorish and self absorbed.
Go sacrifice a lamb, and decide on which one of the thousands of contradictory passages in the bible you wish to proclaim as "God's real words".
BTW, there are three sets of the Ten commandments in the bible, and two of them are pathetically childish. God will get very angry if you don't tremble before him, mark my words, so I imagine he doesn't like you speaking for him very much - especially seeing you get so many of his words wrong HAHAHA!
Don't expect any sympathy from me, Xstian zealots. You give good people a bad reputation which they don't deserve. the silent masses are tired of the loud mouth yahoos like you getting more than your share of air time, and that is beginning to change, very rapiddly, I might add. Don't get left (pun) holding the bag, judgement day cometh. Luckily for you, it will be humanitarian liberals doing the judgeing.Posted by mikmik on 2005-07-02 02:13:53

APF;
What need do the wise and ready to learn have for fairy-tales? Or God for that matter? Any fixed, pre-concieved ideas or notions? Can you make wisdom your own or do you require some other upon which to lean? Is that wise?
Posted by luminous beauty on June 24, 2005 at 11:57 AM
------------------------------------
Luminous beauty,
The wise always learn from someone greater than themselves and not from themselves and their own limited knowledge(such people are called wise in their own sight and actually they are foolish). The wise do not name books which don't fit in with their views of life as fairy-tales and then ask the question: " What need is there for such fairy-tales to gain wisdom?" And yes God is a pre-conceived notion only for those who believe they can create their own gods by their puny minds. For the wise, God is not a pre-conceived notion but a reality who reveals himself. The wise are those who believe in God not because they have created him with their own minds to fit in with their own desires but because they understand their own limitations in finding the one true God and so search for that light which will one day reveal him fully and when that light is found when they find the Bible(in which God reveals himself partially to the Jews and then fully in Jesus Christ at the opportune time), they will reject all other so-called weak fabrications of the human mind and cling to that light to give them highest wisdom and JESUS is that light. By the way, wisdom is never found inside your own self, it has to be found outside of your own self otherwise it is not wisdom but debauchery. And the Christian view of wisdom is not some fancy notions but Christian Wisdom is the person of Jesus Christ. Know him and you have wisdom to the fullest since he is WISDOM. By clinging to him , I am definitely more wise than clinging to myself.
Dear Luminous beauty, make yourself luminous not by your own light but by the light of the one who created you!!! May Jesus reveal himself to you soon, so that you find the wisdom which is far beyond any human understanding. Once you find this wisdom then you will have no need of any other. All other knowledge which you have now or you will have in the future will seem like trash in comparison to the wisdom that Jesus can reveal to you in himself.Posted by APF on 2005-06-25 23:40:30

APF;
What need do the wise and ready to learn have for fairy-tales? Or God for that matter? Any fixed, pre-concieved ideas or notions? Can you make wisdom your own or do you require some other upon which to lean? Is that wise?Posted by luminous beauty on 2005-06-24 09:57:26

The Bible is a fairytail for children and fools, jesus is a 2,000 year old dead Jew, nothing more, and christianity is a mental disorder - who else would think a 2,000 year old dead Jew is God but a psychopath.
Posted by Lefty on June 23, 2005 at 2:22 PM
_________________________________________________
Lefty you are right: "The bible is indeed a fairy-tale for fools and children but for the wise and ready to learn it is the wisdom of God.Posted by APF on 2005-06-24 06:52:15

"Anyone who does not care to read the Bible(which is so freely available) and know that God has revealed himself fully in Jesus , is the most ignorant and naive person on earth and is living in a fool’s paradise. He is like a child who does not want to grow up and eat meat but remain on milk. He wants to continue suckling his thumb like a baby and never grow into a man." Posted by APF on June 19, 2005 at 2:43 AM
The Bible is a fairytail for children and fools, jesus is a 2,000 year old dead Jew, nothing more, and christianity is a mental disorder - who else would think a 2,000 year old dead Jew is God but a psychopath.Posted by Lefty on 2005-06-23 12:22:39

Ryan,
"anything aside from what we know through Christianity and the Gospels is pure speculation."
Please, read carefully the history of the selection of these particular Gospels.
And read if you want some other HISTORIC documents, where Isa (Jesus) is mentioned. At times and by people who had no interest to promote or fight then still inexistent religion.
You can also read the history behind the Second Council of Constantinople and how it was held among other things about the evolution (or more appropriately "designed creationism" :-) of Christianity.
Read all this with open mind and then ask yourself again "Are these FACTS, facts indeed?"
And then we can go back to the media in the USA - why it does not promote more open coverage of the facts (e.g. Dicover channel pulled out from a deal with BBC to broadcast a documentary on life of Jesus, because "the American public is not ready for it yet"). That was the topic of this forum, after all.Posted by evZeny on 2005-06-21 05:10:50

Everyone has the right to read and interpret any book, any teaching and any religion the way they like. Going to the extremes like this one -
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4107524.stm
is the unhealthy part of it. And Christianity does it pretty well.
This forum was about the increased presence of Christianity in the US media. Not about the pros and cons of being religious - Christian or not.
Christianity does have its many flaws and its separate path from the teaching of the person whose name it bears. But so do all other religions.
That's not the point of the forum. As is not the spelling and the grammar of one's opponents.
There are tons of religious forums where such discussions can be taken to.
Since 1992 even the Vatican admits the Earth is not the center of the Universe, yet it is still hard to admit we are not anything special in the mind of the Creator. That's OK. Belief is healthy, even if it's based on fiction.
The question here was much smaller, yet less clear - how long will this influence expand in the media and what the results be.
What about the recent changes with the CPB and the following:
"The authority of the White House was invoked in decisions being made at the Corporation for Public Broadcasting by its chairman, according to emails obtained by NPR. The chairman, Kenneth Tomlinson, has repeatedly denied accusations that he has attempted to politicize the agency during his tenure, which began in September 2003."Posted by evZeny on 2005-06-21 05:01:39

Anyone who does not care to read the Bible(which is so freely available) and know that God has revealed himself fully in Jesus , is the most ignorant and naive person on earth and is living in a fool's paradise. He is like a child who does not want to grow up and eat meat but remain on milk. He wants to continue suckling his thumb like a baby and never grow into a man.Posted by APF on 2005-06-19 00:43:51

Anyone who thinks that they know God has a mental disorder.Posted by Lefty on 2005-06-18 13:58:18

Before God supposedly creates a human soul, that soul did not exist in any subjective, experiential way. Then, having been created, souls (living as mortal humans) have experiences, both positive and negative. But these experiences, Christianity tells us, are just the briefest blip in our eternal soul’s existence, which we proceed to take part in after our mortal lives end. Some souls, however, will doubtlessly fail to accept God’s one entrance-condition, and so they will be excluded. Since God is supposedly all-powerful and all knowing, there is no “if” involved in this situation: The question has already been answered for Him before He even creates the soul. Certainly a soul’s path to damnation could not possibly surprise God, so why would an all-loving God allow a soul to come into being when he knew, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that it was to be damned?
Posted by Proud Atheist on June 1, 2005 at 7:20 PM
----------------- APF's comments on above -------
Yes God is all knowing and he created every human soul to be living for ever. He gave every human being a choice: to yearn for him and find him and then make a choice either to accept him and live according to his ways or reject him and bear the consequences of that choice. Both choices lead to something concrete and real. Accepting God and living in his ways will finally end in an eternity seeing him face to face and living in a reality called "heaven". Rejecting him and living according to the call of the flesh, will finally end in him living eternally in torment in a reality called "hell". But you see my dear friend that God gives you a choice. He may know what choice one is going to make, but still it is a choice. Your going to heaven or hell is your choice not God's. God wants everyone to go to heaven but of their own free will. He does not want frustrated people in heaven who tell him that they did not want to come there, they had no choice and hence they are not happy. Hence every soul is given a choice and the reality of heaven and hell has been explained in the Bible and in many other religions in order that every one can know enough to make his choice. The sad truth is that many will make the choice for hell because they don't want to know that eternity is much longer than their brief life here on earth. They totally neglect that knowledge and want to enjoy every moment of their life on earth living according to fleshly desires. They know what their end will be if they accept that there is a life after death. So they reject it as a lie and hence for them there is no judgement, no heaven , no hell. This life is all there is to it, so eat,live and sin as much as you want and make merry. Because God is a false concept and if ever there is God then that God is a God who will fit their ways and desires. They will not believe in a God who reveals himself to man and shows him only one way to salvation. Or they will not believe in one God but fabricate for themselves tens of thousands of Gods from whom you can select as long as those gods do not go against their own thinking. That's the pitiable state brother!
So summarizing: God is all knowing. He knows who it is that given a choice will choose him or reject him. But that choice is made by man not God.Posted by APF on 2005-06-18 02:26:26

Friends,
Let us not abuse each other but engage in logical discussion. My purpost to write about Jesus is to lay before you my convictions. I am not apologetic about Christianity when Christians have done blunders in the past and are doing in the present or may do in the future. I am just portraying what the New Testament of the Bible says about Jesus. In summary what the Bible says about him is :
1) He was born at a particular time in history and fulfilled many Old testament prophesies about the messaiah who was to come(epecially the prophesies of Prophet Isaiah one of the major Jewish Prophets).
2) He did nature miracles which cannot be done by a mere human being; can only be done by God for e.g he calmed the stormy sea simply by giving a verbal command
3)He himself predicted his death and resurrection much before the events occured.
4)He appeared to many people after his resurrection from the dead
5)His appearance instilled hope and courage in the disciples who were totally downcast and afraid after his death so much so that they boldly proclaimed his as Lord and Saviour after the promise of the Holy spirit was fulfilled at Pentecost day
6)The once persecutor of the Christians Saul the Pharisee, a staunch Jew, became one of the greatest and boldest proponents of Jesus and his teachings after he experieced Jesus in a very tangible way on his way to Damuscus where he was to go and arrest more Christians for following Christianity
7)Church history says very clearly that many Christians died willingly under the Roman Emperor Nero who put to death many Christians just because of their faith in Jesus. People do not die for lies but they will die if they are absolutely sure that their belief is the truth.
Moreover the Bible says in John 3:16: God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that WHOSOEVER believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. This invitation is for every human being and not to the Christians alone(please see the emphasized word "whosoever")
As I said before, I am not apologetic of all the errors committed by Christians in their over zealousness to convert people of other faiths to Christianity. This was not what Jesus had commanded them. He had only commanded them to go and proclaim the gospel to all nations. He had not told them to force convert people but to just share the good news with them. Those who hear it patiently will be led by His holy Spirit to be converted by their own free will, i.e the work of GOd and not the proclaimer.Posted by APF on 2005-06-17 10:53:43

Lefty,
How did you graduate highschool not knowing when to use 'your' or 'you're' in a given instance? "You are" prior post? No Lefty, 'your' prior post. There is little substance in your posts worth responding to.Posted by Ryan Conover on 2005-06-16 12:49:41

Matthew K,
Why can't you respond to the substance of my post, which was directed at you're prior post?Posted by Lefty on 2005-06-16 12:10:52

I think both Lefty and Ryan are suffering from overheated emotions and lapse of logic. And I also think we've exhausted this area of conversation. I know I'm tired of hearing about it. Global macroeconomics, anyone?Posted by Matthew K. on 2005-06-16 08:37:52

Ryan you are genetically incapable of speaking (or typing) without employing false premises.
I notice, however, that despite your criticism of me for quoting others, you don't, and cannot, dispute the truth of the matter asserted in the quotes.
Welcome to the truth of your bloody, murderous heritage.Posted by Lefty on 2005-06-16 04:52:46

Now lefty has a foresome to attend to it seems! Quotes are wonderful, if you have nothing worth quoting to say yourself!Posted by Ryan Conover on 2005-06-15 22:59:20

Matthew K said: "I don’t know that Christianity has been, on average, any bloodier than any other religion."
Well, Matthew there are a few, of irreproachable credibility, who lived in a time much closer the the bloodiest years of Christianity, who disagree with you. Consider the following quotes, that I've already posted in this thread:
“Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity.” -Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782
“As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation. But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legaends, has been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed.” -John Adams in a letter to F.A. Van der Kamp, Dec. 27, 1816
“I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved--the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!” -John Adams in a letter to Thomas Jefferson
“History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes.” -Thomas Jefferson letter to Alexander von Humboldt, Dec. 6, 1813.
“Creeds have been the bane of the Christian church ... made of Christendom a slaughter-house.” - Thomas Jefferson to Benjamin Waterhouse, Jun. 26, 1822
“Whence arose all the horrid assassinations of whole nations of men, women, and infants, with which the Bible is filled; and the bloody persecutions, and tortures unto death, and religious wars, that since that time have laid Europe in blood and ashes; whence arose they, but from the impious thing called religion. and this mostrous belief that God has spoken to man?” - Thomas PainePosted by Lefty on 2005-06-15 20:49:17

Whisper,
I always smile at the Christian suicide bombers argument. The Christians don't have to be. And can't be. The first - because they are strong enough not to need that. The second - because there is no promise of 40 virgins in heaven in their Book. If they were...:-)
The Islam is definitely over top on this one.
But terrorism and such extreme acts come from weakness and desperation. There is a long history on that. I come from a country that was under Ottoman yoke for 500 years and these years were full of examples. As is the case with the violance in Israel, Spain, Ireland, Kashmir etc. even nowadays.
On the last points I agree 100% with you.
As on the goals of faith - religions and faith is a long and different topic.Posted by evGeny on 2005-06-15 16:58:28

Aelathali,
alas, people tend to read less. And not the right books :-)Posted by evZENy on 2005-06-15 16:39:02

I don't know that Christianity has been, on average, any bloodier than any other religion. As much as I would like to simply denigrate religious belief, I have to admit, there are some believers -- like Gandhi and Dr. King -- who were individuals of sterling character, who had a great and lasting impact on the world. There are also some athiests, like Joseph Stalin and Ayn Rand, whom I find repulsive. All told, religion has done more harm than good, but this is not a simple world.Posted by Matthew K. on 2005-06-15 15:43:57

I also accused you of immaturity, egotism and a terribly bitter disposition. I retract none of those accusations. I only sincerely hope that your job doesn't put you in a position to impose your hatred and bigotry on any impressionable minds. In the end, embittered pathetic persons such as yourself have little impact on anything. Believe what you like, it's of little consequence to anyone.Posted by Ryan Conover on 2005-06-15 12:58:04

Mat, Agreed. But, one religion's history is MUCH bloodier than all others.
Ryan, who's thinks that myths and fables are real, accuses another of mental illness. To put it diplomatically - irony at its best.Posted by Lefty on 2005-06-15 12:39:03

wow, murderous animals... but I belong to the hate-filled group? I think Lefty has 10 chips on his shoulder, a bad attitude, is an egomaniac and is probably a manic depressive or possibly bipolar. On top of that you're more than a bit immature lefty. Are you a lonely person lefty? You should be.Posted by Ryan Conover on 2005-06-15 10:08:24

All points of view are not equally valid, as fashionable as it may be to believe so in certain sectors of academe today. Some ideas simply do a better job of explaining the world than others. In order to believe in the literal truth of the Bible, we would have to ignore its self-contradictions and inconsistencies, the fact that it has been emended, edited, translated multiple times, often to suit political agendas, and does not meet any of the criteria stipulated by professional historians and theologians for an accurate text. Not to mention suspending our belief in the laws of nature. We would, in other words, have to be completely unreasonable.
Again, I don't think it hypocritical to try to persuade someone through logical argument. If a fundamentalist wishes to so persuade me, he is more than entitled to try. Since he is unlikely to have any logical arguments, as I have just explained, I find the possibility remote.
Oh, and Lefty, I basically agree with what you said, but it behooves us to remember that all religions are guilty of some degree of turpitude.Posted by Matthew K. on 2005-06-15 08:25:09

Ryan Said:
"This is what I’m talking about. The egotism in believing in nothing but one’s one ego blows my mind. To believe that nothing outside the realm of one’s own personal physical and intellectual experience is possible is insanely cocky. The things we as humanity do not know or understand are infinite! So nowhere in that infinity of ignorance is a risen Messiah possible? If you don’t believe it fine, but why do you have to disrespect others’ spiritual beliefs by saying things like that? The same people who so often say “live and let live” act completely the opposite if someone’s beliefs interfere with their own. APF said his bit, why is it not enough to say, “Ok, I respect that, I may not agree, but you’re entitled to your own beliefs.” Why is it necessary to say, “Yea, nice idea, but it’s a fairy tale.” For the sake of manners, respecting others and good taste, can’t you keep that to yourself? Did your parents teach you anything?"
*************************************************
Ryan, your post is the hight of arrogant, hypocritical, stupidity.
First, you open with yet another false premise. Just because someone doesn't believe in your God doesn't mean that they don't believe in the existence of some force beyond their own existence.
Second, it is your religion, Christianity, that is the prototype of proslytism. The most fundimental aspect of Christianity is to go around telling others that their religion is wrong and that if they doen't believe in your God they will spend eternity in hell. What monumental, arrogant, hypocricy egotism. And you talk of manners. Are you a complete imbecile?
Even more arrogant (and hypocritical) is that you profess that "The things we as humanity do not know or understand are infinite! So nowhere in that infinity of ignorance is a risen Messiah possible?" Sure, Ryan. The possibility is equally likely that "Minerva sprung from the brain of Jupiter." - Thomas Jefferson
More outrageous, Christians think that God created man in his own image. What supreme (idiotic) arrogance is that. More likely, Ryan, is that man created God in his own image and that the true God's image, will and words are utterly beyond the comprehension of any Christian.
Most hypocritical of all you utter: "The same people who so often say “live and let live” act completely the opposite if someone’s beliefs interfere with their own." What a hypocritical ass you are, Ryan. MORE PEOPLE HAVE BEEN MURDERED BY CHRISTIANS IN THE NAME OF CHRIST FOR REFUSING TO CONVERT TO CHRISTIANITY (OR TO THE MURDERERS PARTICULAR SECT OF CHRISTIANITY) THAN FOR ANY OTHER CAUSE IN THE HISTORY OF MANKIND.
And then, you stupidly act surprised that Christains are treated like the murderous animals that they are.Posted by Lefty on 2005-06-15 05:53:46

Christianity,Islam,what’s the difference?”
Don’t see alot of Christian suicide bombers, for one!
And while many of all faiths do not meet the goals of their faiths, the goals are very important nonetheless (Christianity wins over Islam overwhelmingly here).
I have the problem that 100,000 people in Iraq were killed because of this president's religion. Bush is against freedom and for facism. You only need to read to realize that we are living in 1933 Germany and no one is speaking up.Posted by Whisper on 2005-06-15 00:41:55

By the way Zen, I'll quote you: "And then we can go to the origin of Jewdeism itself. But should we?" So that one sentence is supposed to suggest that Christianity was and still is a form of Judaism? I fail to see how on earth that sentence suggests that, mostly because it doesnt. It doesn't even hint at it.
Why would you make a play on the word Judaism by inserting 'Jew' into the word? It doesn't make any sense! I believe it's pretty well established that Judaism is the religion of the Jews. There IS no play on words there. The only playful thing about it is its redundancy. Seriously, don't ever let anyone tell you you're a genius Zen.Posted by Ryan Conover on 2005-06-14 20:04:31

I certainly don't consider anyone inferior to me for not believing. Who are you to assume that I believe that? The ideas some atheists and agnostics get in their heads, where they get them, and why they can't stay away from biggoted broad generalizations is beyond me. You are part of the problem, congratulations.Posted by Ryan Conover on 2005-06-14 19:54:30

ZEN,
I think someone read a good book and retained the knowledge. :)
And I think the world would be a much better place if more people followed suit. One can dream...Posted by Aelathali on 2005-06-14 19:39:37

Aelathali :-)
Because we have become too human :-)
The trees are nice. The sun is nice. The birds are nice. Because they ARE.
We live in the past (2000 and more years as you can see) and in the future, but in the Now.
What do you think?
:-)Posted by evZENy on 2005-06-14 19:37:34

Beth,
good question. It will create the Christian version of Iran and the similar countries, where the law is based on the Quran and the Islam values. You steal - they cut your arm. You are a doctor performing abortions - they shoot you. Find the difference.
The leaders are judged on the basis of their religious values and opinions. All of them proving to be people of faith, without sins and well familiar with the Holy Book and using God's name (well, not really THE name :-) in their speeches.
I find the similarities scary.
Yes, women can drive in the US, yet they still make less money than men do. Which is one of the reasons why USA was ranked so low in the Women's right chart of OECD (came out few weeks ago).
Or the influences felt in the educational syste (30 states have or will consider removal or modification of the evolution theory), the health syste (pharmacist gone wild. If they have problems with selling some drugs, are they in the right profession?) and many aspects of the everyday life. My guess is things will get worse.Posted by evZENy on 2005-06-14 19:33:51

Why can't people just be nice?Posted by Aelathali on 2005-06-14 19:13:59

Ryan,
I know how Judaism is spelled. As does my spell checker :-)
You missed the equilibristic play with the words: the fact that Christianity was and is a form of Judaism - the religion of the Jews. Who claim they were selected by God as the chosen people (read on the origin of Judaism to see which the local God was).
Respecting the others can not be the case of ANY religion. Since the fact that you believe to be a chosen one, by the One and Only God automatically excludes the others as inferior to you. The respect was rarely seen in the Christian history. Like the massacre of the original Christians in Goa by the Portuguese, which had a different (and possibly more accurate) version of the life of Jesus. [The facts are well documented in Vatican and the British National Museum, in case you haven't studied them in school / church.]
Forget about Goa - look at America and the atrocities done by the Christians moving here with their big ships, crosses and hunger for riches (didn’t Jesus mention something about Heaven and the poor in it?). Killing both the locals and the slaves they brought with themselves (apparently neither created in the image of God and loved by Him). And the slavery, racism, treating of women as inferior continued till…I don’t know. Still?
Or look at the respect to people without the Christian “values” today!
An enlightened person will not describe himself as such or claim it. I try to stay an empty glass. Similar to APF I've read many of the books he had. Or others. But my conclusion was, that the Christianity is neither better, and usually not much worse than the others. All religions have the identical moral values keeping the society in order. And give the individual the fake hope for a brighter future. Well, actually not all of them. Some ASK you to live a better live NOW. While others are fine if in your last minute you accept that 2000 years ago someone died for your sins. So no matter what they have been, you are OK.
That is the way Paul created it and that is the reason why it is the most popular religion nowadays - the ease with each the Heaven can be reached.
Put fear and guilt and people will come to you, if you have a way to help them out from the mental Matrix you have created for them.
True for all religions.
On your other point - a child may make mistakes that don’t make sense to you, because you can see the danger. In playing with the knife, fire etc. Does that mean, that because the child doesn’t understand yet the problems s/he faces, the problems do not exist? That because they have not seen and understood the possible consequences, the latter are not real?
A famous teacher once explained, that only people who don’t KNOW would talk about KNOWING. That’s what we all are doing here. I am not ashamed to admit my ignorance. I just share, don’t attack.
Have a nice day!Posted by evZENy on 2005-06-14 19:12:28

Who has tried to force you to believe as they do? I wholeheartedly agree that these "born again" types love to impose, and do more to make Christianity look creepy than to evangelize. That said, what APF said in no way makes him overzealous nor does it impose on you or anyone. So they believe things that don't make sense? NO! They believe things that don't make sense to YOU!You are too wrapped up in yourself and your own beliefs, or "philosophic worldview". You say you're willing to accept certain interpretations, but only those that don't conflict with your views. That is EXACTLY the same as saying, "I don't care what someone believes, as long as it's what I believe." You automatically count anyone who professes a belief that they hold firmly as "unreasonable". SO I say Matthew, when you find yourself in a position where you absolutely believe that you are right, and someone else is adament that you're wrong, do you stick to your guns or do you waver? If you stick to your guns, then you could consider yourself unreasonable as you seem to view the requirements. You seem to want others to believe the way you do. Haven't you tried to convince anyone here who has professed any religious beliefs to accept YOUR view of the world? Yes, yes you absolutely have. That would make you a hypocrite! Do you find that title suitable? If not maybe YOU have some things you need to re-think as well. It is not rude to disagree with someone. It IS rude to belittle them or to belittle their beliefs after stating your disagreement. But again, you're just evangelizing, right?Posted by Ryan Conover on 2005-06-14 17:12:09

I think it's egotistic to call someone rude for stating the truth as he sees it. How is it rude to disagree with someone? If you cannot have a rational discussion about your beliefs, how do you know that they are justified?
As a philosophical skeptic, I not only acknowledge the limitations to human understanding, I firmly reject any notion of incorrigible grounds or foundations for that understanding. It is for this very reason that I reject as, at best foolishness, at worst outright bigotry, any notion that our knowledge of the world necessarily emanates from some infallible metaphysical source, as fundamentalists claim.
Nor does this mean that I reject all religious belief as invalid. There are liberal interpretations of religion which are compatible with my philosophic worldview. These interpretations see religion as what it is, a system of symbolic, not literal truths, the truths of art and human creativity, devised by men to explain the world. My only issue with this line of thinking is, having come so far, why not simply accept that art does a better job of explaining the world than religion, as traditionally defined. But there is plenty of room for reasonable people to disagree.
The problem with fundamentalists is that they are not reasonable, nor are they polite. They believe things that simply don't make any sense, and more importantly, want to force others to believe as they do. That, to me, seems an affront to "manners, respecting others, and good taste," to say the very least.Posted by Matthew K. on 2005-06-14 16:39:01

This is what I'm talking about. The egotism in believing in nothing but one's one ego blows my mind. To believe that nothing outside the realm of one's own personal physical and intellectual experience is possible is insanely cocky. The things we as humanity do not know or understand are infinite! So nowhere in that infinity of ignorance is a risen Messiah possible? If you don't believe it fine, but why do you have to disrespect others' spiritual beliefs by saying things like that? The same people who so often say "live and let live" act completely the opposite if someone's beliefs interfere with their own. APF said his bit, why is it not enough to say, "Ok, I respect that, I may not agree, but you're entitled to your own beliefs." Why is it necessary to say, "Yea, nice idea, but it's a fairy tale." For the sake of manners, respecting others and good taste, can't you keep that to yourself? Did your parents teach you anything?Posted by Ryan Conover on 2005-06-14 14:39:54

The story of Christ is a powerful story, APF, one with a long tradition in the pagan religions of the Near East (like the myths of Osiris and Mithras). But it's not literally true. Breathe deeply.Posted by Matthew K. on 2005-06-14 14:26:38

Let me tell you a story in the gospels of the New Testament. There was a blind man and he was blind from birth. He once heard that Jesus was passing by and so he started shouting, " Jesus, son of David, have pity on me" The disciples rebuked him and told him not to call out to Jesus. However he went on calling on Jesus all the more. When Jesus heard him, he called him and said, " what do you want me to do for you". The blind man answered, " I want to see" And Jesus cured him.
All you guys who are just poking fun at Jesus, look at your pitiable lives and ask yourselves: " Am I not blind and need to see?" Jesus though he knew that the man was blind still asked him what he wanted. Isn't it strange? What would a blind man need from a healer? Most certainly his eye-sight! Yet Jesus asked him, " What do you want me to do for you?" God, represented by his Son Jesus, gives every man the opportunity to look within himself and find out what is his own need. It is upto us men and women to find out what is our deepest need and ask God for that need to be fulfilled. And the deepest need of man is nothing but to see his own sinfulness and his lost state in not being able to do anything about it. And that is where grace in Jesus abounded. If Jesus had not died and paid the price for us sinners, we would be blind and not even know that we are blind till we had to pay the price for our blindness in a total separation from God when the time of judgement comes(what many call "hell"). Do you know what the Bible says : God did not send his son into the world that the world may be condemned but that the world may be saved through him. If any one does not believe this it is not God who condemns him, but he condemns himself because he has not believed in God's only plan for the salvation of mankind. Think of it guys! What is the state of even the most wealthy nation in the world today? Where has the so called freedom taken the people in the US and also in many other parts of the world? Has this freedom kept young boys from shooting their school mates in school when they should have been playing with them? Has it stopped mothers from killing their babies in their wombs which was created to be the safest place for a child to develop? Did it stop great scientific principals from being misused to build the first atom bomb which killed so many in Hiroshima and Nagasaki that still there are the scars of that operation even now so many years later? If God is just then man deserves to pay the price for his sin by his own eternal death in hell! But praise God, that someone paid that price and in Jesus the justice and mercy of God both are satisfied. I could go on and on because I have read not only the Christian Bible but also the Jewish Bible, the Muslim Koran , the Hindu Ramayana and Mahabharatha and did not find the true nature of God ie infinite mercy and infinite justice shown better than in the person of Jesus as portrayed in the Christian Bible.Posted by APF on 2005-06-14 08:36:21

Hey Zen, it's spelled 'Judaism'... eesh... Some people will believe anything as long as it's not the normal interpretation. They like to feel as if they are one of the few enlightened while the rest are led astray. I guess I can understand the wish to feel exclusive, but I'm pretty sure the attempt is misguided.Posted by Ryan Conover on 2005-06-14 06:42:50

This thread is incredibly interesting to me. I would like to hear what all of you think about Christian Reconstructionism...based on the Institutes of Biblical Law by Rushdoony. If you're not familiar with it, look up Institutes. We have a group of relatively insane people in the U.S. who wish to form a Christian theocracy in this country, based on biblical law. This means no vote for women, execution of gays, etc. Read up and see if you don't recognize what is happening to us through the influence of the most radical of what is called the Religious Right...which I consider the Religious Wrong.Posted by Beth on 2005-06-14 05:57:49

I belive religion is not a sources of evil rather is a main social factor.True believer never will hate or harm any body. true beliver is commited his or her life to serve. So, many who are selfish , will speak selfishly against religion because, religion is not wellcoming their selfish behaviour.what would happend if there were no chruch or mosque , or other temple in this country?Posted by dave on 2005-06-14 00:20:43

"Lefty, you are an idiot. I would never knock your lack of faith except for the fact that you need to belittle others’ beliefs. You are also a liar and slanderer, as well as an egomaniac. Enjoy your pathetic and petty existence, I’m not wasting another word on you." Posted by Ryan Conover on June 13, 2005 at 12:54 PM
C'mon Ryan! I may be an asshole, but an idiot, never. LOL.Posted by Lefty on 2005-06-13 20:39:07

Ryan,
Saul (Paul) did exist.
Unfortunately for all of us.
http://www.tombofjesus.com/home.htm -
check the historic documents and links (incl. the Bible itself and St. Iranaeus if you don't buy the other facts); e.g. some papers published in Science on the DNA of the Lost jewish tribes
http://www.pbs.org/empires/peterandpaul/history/teacher/ - on Paulinism. A nice PBS documentary on Paul vs. Peter featuring leading world theologists. The conclusion was "unfortunately the Romans destroyed Jerusalem and left us with the Paul version of the new Jewish sect which doesn't have much to do with the teaching of Jesus"
http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/jesus.html - some more on the origin of "Christianity", the Bible, etc. Note the story of Mithras. Pretty much the same. Only 200 years older.
And then we can go to the origin of Jewdeism itself. But should we? :-)Posted by evZENy on 2005-06-13 18:08:48

Let's all take a step back, and try to remember that all religious texts -- ALL of them, whether we're talking the Torah, Bible, Koran, Rig Veda, Buddhist scrolls, whatever -- are in large part fantasy. All took bits of actual history and wove them together with semihistorical myth and legend. All were embellished and revised over the centuries to suit the political agendas of priests and kings.
As a progressive gay man who thinks metaphysical language is meaningless, I am sick of ignorant, hate-filled bigots trying to impose their fundamentalist beliefs on the rest of us, whether through the state or the newly-ascendant Christian media. I don't oppose all religion, just political fundamentalism. Take your medications, people, and leave us alone.Posted by Matthew K. on 2005-06-13 14:58:15

Lefty, you are an idiot. I would never knock your lack of faith except for the fact that you need to belittle others' beliefs. You are also a liar and slanderer, as well as an egomaniac. Enjoy your pathetic and petty existence, I'm not wasting another word on you.Posted by Ryan Conover on 2005-06-13 10:54:12

Blahahahahahahahaha!!!
Ryan, reality check - YOU ARE A CONSERVATIVE. Let's look at the evidence shall we.
Exhibit A - You are unable argue without the aid of a false premise, e.g. I didn't say "anyone" of faith was a conservative, I was only talking about you.
Exhibit B - You are a liar. The inconsistencies in your last two posts are irrevutible proof that you (like your friend Natalie), are an inveterate, pathological liar. Your patent hate for Jefferson for not sharing your religious views, and for any and all things inconsistent with your primative belief system, is a matter of public record for all to see. Rather than argue the points Jefferson made about the merits of Christianity, you attacked Jefferson personally, which leads us to -
Exhibit C - You are a hypocrite. You proudly declaim that I am a bitch (having no information about my gender) and Jefferson a slave rapist, and then protest characterizations of you as hateful, which leads us to -
Exhibit D - You hate just as you breath, eat and sleep. It is who you are - a classic, bitter, hateful, Christian, conservative. I don't have to presume what boils over from your soul, Ryan, it's plain for all to see. It boils right out of your mouth (actually out of your keyboard). Your pathetic proffer that you haven't uttered the word hate as proof that you don't have hate in your heart is plainly controverted by the overt hate that you have demostrated numerous times on this forum, and in particular, me and Jefferson. Come to think of it, it's an honor, and quite humbling, to have something in common with Jefferson - Ryan's hate.
Exhibit E - You employ your religion as a sword and sheild in a political argument - in and of itself, conclusive proof that -
Ryan, you are a classic conservative.Posted by Lefty on 2005-06-13 07:37:41

haha, only from Saul's head? So you're saying that Paul didn't exist... so then Saul and Paul are not the same man? I am no sort of conservative by the way. I find it hillarious that anyone with any faith or any conviction in this age must certainly be a "conservative". I hate no one, and I certainly cannot remember Jesus ever preaching hate. I love how you presume to know what "boils over" from my soul. I certainly do not hate Thomas Jefferson, I actually admire a lot about him, but I will giggle a bit at the obvious hard-on you have for him. Do you ever fantasize about him Lefty? Far be it from me to 'crucify' Thomas Jefferson. ;) You are a slanderer Lefty. Find any post where I mention hate, express hatred, or advocate hatred and I will gladly retract that statement. The only way you can make an argument is to assassinate my character. Since we pick at each other around here trying to seem more intellectual than the last; are you suggesting that the goddess minerva was fabled to have sprung from Saul's head? Look at how you structured that sentence.
Tschus!Posted by Ryan Conover on 2005-06-12 23:09:03

Isn't it cute how deep and bitter a conservative's hatred is for anyone or anything that is irreconcilable with his belief system. Even Thomas Jefferson, the greatest and most brilliant founding father of them all, is not safe from the visceral, caustic, hatred that boils over from the soul of a conservative dolt such as Ryan.
Isn't it amusing how a worm like Ryan (who doesn't amount to a pimple of one of Jefferson's pimples) feels free to assassinate the character of one with the status of Jefferson. I say one because there is no one else in the history of America who shares that status. Ryan has absolutely nothing substantive to say so he resorts to that most pathetic conservative tool, hate.
Ryan, very sharp of you to figure out that Jefferson didn't give me permission to quote him. Although, he was a public figure, a President, who made numerous public comments about "the wall of separation between chruch and state" and the obvious fraud of the Christain religion. Somehow, I am confident that Jefferson intended that his public statements would be remembered and quoted. Ryan hates Jefferson because Jefferson publicly stated that Ryan's God IS A FALSE GOD, and that Ryan's religion is hate.
Ryan, I didn't try to compare Jefferson with Paul. But I will make this comparison, Jefferson actually existed. Paul didn't. His name was Saul, and the story of Jesus sprung from his head like Minerva.Posted by Lefty on 2005-06-12 19:50:23

It's cute what a hard-on Lefty has for Thomas Jefferson, who was OBVIOUSLY a far better man than St. Paul, or at least was pretty decent when he wasn't busy knocking up his slaves. You quote Jefferson like scripture, and I'm pretty sure Jefferson didn't give you permission to use his name, like "god" a few posts back. Maybe you will hear from his lawyers.Posted by Ryan Conover on 2005-06-12 15:49:44

I would like to hear what he knows about Thomas in Kerala. As far as I'm aware, the Portuguese destroyed almost all trace of the Thomasine Church in India. One of those unimportant little 'wipe out heresy' things.Posted by luminous beauty on 2005-06-12 14:42:10

Lefty;
I'm glad you pointed that flaw out to APF. I betcha he doesn't get it, though. Things are so wonderful in Never Never Land, if you just believe.Posted by luminous beauty on 2005-06-12 14:34:50

To APF the proslytiser I respond:
"Christianity...(has become) the most perverted system that ever shone on man. Rogueries, absurdities and untruths were perpetrated upon the teachings of Jesus by a large band of dupes and imposters led by Paul, the first great corrupter of the teaching of Jesus." - Thomas Jefferson
"I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the world, and do not find in our particular superstition [Christianity] one redeeming feature. They are all alike, founded on fables and mythology." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Short
"And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a Virgin Mary, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter. . . . But we may hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away all this artificial scaffolding." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, 11 April 1823
That day has come and gone, APF. And BTW, the fatal defect in your argument is that you are trying to prove fables with fables. It's time to grow up, APF.Posted by Lefty on 2005-06-12 08:46:42

The greatest proof of Jesus being a historical person like the one that is portrayed in the gospels is that the very person named Saul who was a staunch Pharisee, who persecuted the early Christians and was responsible for the death of the first ever Christian martyr viz. Stephen(Refer Acts of the apostles) was the very one who was so transformed by the appearance of Jesus on the way to Damuscus that he became one of the most eloquant speakers in favour of Jesus later on(yes the same Paul who wrote so many of the most beautiful letters in the New Testament of the Bible). Moreover we have St. Thomas(who questioned whether Jesus had really appeared to his apostles after his resurrection the first time when he was not there with them but later on when Jesus appeared to him and showed him his hands and feet and side and Thomas said : "My Lord and my God")who came to Kerala in India and preached Christianity here. In fact Christianity came to India from St. Thomas.
Moreover the greatest proof of his resurrection from the dead is that today when he is preached by missionaries to people who don't know him and they accept him, there are many impossible healings which occur in his name which can be attributed only to God and not to man. Does one require any more proof? For eg imagine that you have a terminal sickess and a doctor comes and he heals that so called terminal sickness. That person does not require any more proof about the athenticity of that doctor. His healing is the proof. Tomorrow if anyone comes and says that that doctor is a quack, the person healed will not believe it because he has experienced the reality from the doctor first hand. The same is occuring all over the world today to many people. So if this much is true about Jesus as told in the gospels, then is it difficult to believe that the New Testament which portrays him as calling himself the Messiah who was to come as per Old Testament Scriptures, is telling the truth? Well wait and watch then, when he does come; all those believing and unbelieving will both know, isn't it?Posted by APF on 2005-06-12 07:04:37

Any human being that thinks they understand My Nature is a liar or a fool.
If they are using My Name, for any purpose, they have not received authorization to do so.
My lawyers will be in touch with them to discuss this, shortly.
Eternally yours,
GodPosted by supreme being on 2005-06-11 21:28:48

Gee, luminous beauty, all the compliments you give just make a fella blushPosted by Campesino on 2005-06-11 15:25:33

"I am not surprised. If you are in power, you do attempt to influece the media, and since when did the US media stop covering the powerful?"
Posted by Amod Prajapati on June 10, 2005 at 4:38 PM
Let's see. Could it be when the powerful bought the media as permitted by deregulation?
Funny, I haven't heard any negative news about the crimes of GE on NBC lately.Posted by Lefty on 2005-06-11 10:46:17

I wouldn't know anything about baseball pitchers Lefty. =P That sport is slower than golf these days...bores the hell out of me!Posted by Ryan Conover on 2005-06-11 00:44:43

All her articles are in the ITT archives, I believe. If you could find such an explicit denunciation of diversity from Ms. Douglas you would most certainly have her in a faux pas situation. Go ahead and re-read and let me know what you find.
I read two articles that were specifically about media reform:
One where she fantasizes about return of the 'fairness doctrine' for news programming, arguing for more points of view, not less. You are prominent in the comments section, though, I'm sorry to say, not particularily distinguished.
The other is advocating against Powell Jr.'s media consolidation plan; again advocating for more, and more diverse viewpoints.
Freedom of speech and equal and fair treatment for diverse views are generally held progressive beliefs. It would be strange, indeed, if Douglas is actually advocating the diametric opposite with language only you are capable of discerning.
I do believe everyone is entitled to his or her opinion, but you, sir, strain that belief to the edge of credulity.Posted by luminous beauty on 2005-06-10 16:35:42

Well, l.b., I guess we could play the "code speak" game that's often played on this site but we shouldn't go there.
I have read several articles that Douglas has written on this site about "media reform" and most of them take the approach, in fact one explicitly said, that there is too much media and people are getting confused. Her suggestion for reform is that the number of media outlets should be less and that they should focus on providing information that Douglas believes is "true". I think this is basically calling for stifling points of view that she disagrees with.
I read this article in the context of the earlier ones and saw it as a continuation of that point of view with respect to the coverage of religion in the media.Posted by Campesino on 2005-06-10 15:00:45

I am not surprised. If you are in power, you do attempt to influece the media, and since when did the US media stop covering the powerful?Posted by Amod Prajapati on 2005-06-10 14:38:05

Sorry Campy,that was meant for Ryan Conover.Posted by mike on 2005-06-10 13:16:32

Campesino;
How, exactly, do any of these quotes contradict anything I've said? How, exactly does complaining of exaggerated influence translate into banning evangelicals from the airwaves? Do you have some secret knowledge that 'solid, investigative work' is really some kind of liberal code language for 'partisan hit piece'?
That's not what we do in the reality-based community. Disguising their motives with euphemism is much more the argumentative style of the right.Posted by luminous beauty on 2005-06-10 12:43:24

Ryan, I didn't say I was a woman either. I don't want my arguments to be tainted or pidgeonholed by preconcieved notions about my gender, race or religion. So, I try not to tip my hand on those issues.
BTW, I alway thought that "Lefty" was most typically used to describe baseball pitchers.Posted by Lefty on 2005-06-10 12:33:56

Where does she say ‘it’s bad that evangelicals even appear on TV’
Douglas - The parade of evangelicals on TV exaggerates the numbers of these folks and makes them seem much more influential than they are--or certainly should be
or that she wants ‘only’ for them be portrayed in a ‘negative’ light rather than wanting to see more coverage in an objective, journalistically valid light?
Douglas - Rather than clones of the Christian Broadcasting Network, we need solid, investigative work about the money, organizations and, indeed, the cynicism behind all of these crusading efforts
It is obvious on its face Douglas is addressing what she percieves to be an existing imbalance in coverage
Instead, Jesus news embezzles time away from stories people really need to hear, like much more detailed coverage of the Bush/Republican energy bill, which got a total of six minutes of coverage from all three networks when it passed the house the week of April 18.
Douglas -Posted by Campesino on 2005-06-10 10:34:45

Campesino:
I still cannot see any justification for your conclusions. Where does she say 'it's bad that evangelicals even appear on TV' or that she wants 'only' for them be portrayed in a 'negative' light rather than wanting to see more coverage in an objective, journalistically valid light? It is obvious on its face Douglas is addressing what she percieves to be an existing imbalance in coverage. To say she has an unspoken 'agenda' of reversing that bias in her own favor or advocating some kind of anti-religious censorship is an unwarranted and basically salacious imputation of her professional ethics. Surely such a charge requires more evidence than your mere opinion of what you think she 'really' means?
Believe me, there is plenty of dirt to be found on the 'Religious Wrong'. Much, much more than you'll ever see on the Evening News.
One might reasonably conclude you are letting your biases read into the text what isn't there.Posted by luminous beauty on 2005-06-10 09:31:54

luminous beauty
I agree with you that prosyletism dressed up as straight news is not good. But I don't think that is Douglas' main complaint. Read her last paragraph
"The parade of evangelicals on TV exaggerates the numbers of these folks and makes them seem much more influential than they are--or certainly should be. Rather than clones of the Christian Broadcasting Network, we need solid, investigative work about the money, organizations and, indeed, the cynicism behind all of these crusading efforts to turn our country into a giant Bible camp."
She thinks it's bad that the evangelicals even appear on TV because it makes them look important. She wants them only to appear in the negative light of investigative reporting. She's a journalist, she can jump right in herself. I'm sure there's lots of dirt to be found there.
Shorter Douglas - how dare you waste valuable air time covering people I disagree with, but hey, if you do have to cover them you should only say bad things about them
And I do appreciate that ITT provides this forum. I always try to remain courteous, open-minded, and fact basedPosted by Campesino on 2005-06-10 08:44:53

Campesino,thanx for pointing out that Lefty takes it on the chin,whatever that means.Try thinking about what you say before you say it
"Takes it on the chin?" I have no idea what you are talking aboutPosted by Campesino on 2005-06-10 08:32:24

Campesino:
I think when a news program puts out unadorned prosyletism of political or religious beliefs as 'news', it has abandoned journalistic principles. I think this is a very valid critique. Not saying they can't express their editorial opinion, just label it as such. This seems to be the 'agenda' of Douglas, also. It is beyond my limited understanding how you come to see this as 'shutting off...dissent'. If her criticism of other journalists is bad, then why isn't your criticism of her just as bad?
That Douglas is published in a web magazine where dissenting opinion such as yours is allowed in the comments section gives her and ITT much greater cachet of open dialog than most right wing sites that delete any dissent. Especially when the dissenter has their facts and reasoning together.Posted by luminous beauty on 2005-06-10 04:32:50

Campesino,thanx for pointing out that Lefty takes it on the chin,whatever that means.Try thinking about what you say before you say it.But enough of poking fun at stupid people.Most christians,like members of other organized religions,believe the parts of their 'religion' thats convenient for them,and ignore the rest.So Bush says that God talks to him and tells him to kill muslims,priests can rationalise sexually abusing young boys,it was okay to make 'them niggas' slaves cause Jesus was white,etc,etc,etc!Here's a clue,it's all bullshit!!!Posted by mike on 2005-06-09 22:30:26

Double negative, how embarrassing!
I wouldn never say that the media should stop covering things that you think are important and I don’t.Posted by Campesino on 2005-06-09 17:57:15

Campesino:
It’s more like covering real news and total BS. Like coverage of the North Podunk Weekly Tiddley-Winks Tourney pre-emting the Super Bowl. Get it?
Why shouldn’t she complain? Why are you complaining about her complaining? Do you think the news media are doing a good job of informing American citizens? Really?
Posted by luminous beauty on June 9, 2005 at 4:24
She can complain all she wants. I guess to state my point more clearly, I think it is a waste of time to complain that the news media is wasting time covering something that you don't think is important. All of us could make that complaint - see my example of soccer and baseball. You should focus on what you see that you think is important and ignore what you think isn't. What you and I think are real news and total BS are probably different (though I am sure there would be lots of overlap). I wouldn't never say that the media should stop covering things that you think are important and I don't.
Douglas is saying that the media should limit its scope to things that she wants to see and messages she agrees with. She has had a previous series of articles on "media reform" that basically boil down to shutting off political and cultural messages that dissent from her agenda. I think that is bad for the country
No I wouldn't say the news media is doing a great job. However, there are so many alternative sources of information available now that I feel much better informed than I did 10-15 years agoPosted by Campesino on 2005-06-09 17:55:57

Campesino:
It's more like covering real news and total BS. Like coverage of the North Podunk Weekly Tiddley-Winks Tourney pre-emting the Super Bowl. Get it?
Why shouldn't she complain? Why are you complaining about her complaining? Do you think the news media are doing a good job of informing American citizens? Really?Posted by luminous beauty on 2005-06-09 14:24:34

No Camposino, you missed the point. It’s more like, take your stinking religion and keep it to yourself. Your proslytizing is vulgar, despicable and offensive. Get it now?
Posted by Lefty on June 6, 2005 at 5:43 AM
Go reread the article. It's not about proslytizing. Douglas' complaint is really that coverage of religious issues by the media takes time away from coverage of what she believes is more important stuff:
"Instead, Jesus news embezzles time away from stories people really need to hear, like much more detailed coverage of the Bush/Republican energy bill, which got a total of six minutes of coverage from all three networks when it passed the house the week of April 18."
It's like complaining that the sports section in your paper wastes time and page space covering soccer, when they should really be providing more detailed coverage of baseball - stories people really need to hear!
Get it now?Posted by Campesino on 2005-06-09 13:19:42

shorter version of campesino’s post;
“WHINE”
Posted by luminous beauty on June 6, 2005 at 7:50 AM
You're right - Susan Douglas was definitely whining!Posted by Campesino on 2005-06-09 13:13:13

Seriously, how do you presume to speak for so many spiritual leaders? The arrogance is astonishing...
Well Lefty, sorry, Lefty was my grandfather's nickname and usually a nickname for mobsters, men... so I'm assuming you're a woman, you still take it on the chin. Sorry about the mixup.Posted by Ryan Conover on 2005-06-09 12:58:53

Ryan,
you can blow the mind of a person sticking to it. A mind full of doctrines and dogmas. The latter by the way have little to do with the teaching of the correspondent spiritual person - neither Lao Tzu, Buddha, Jesus, Mohammed etc. would appreciate what has been done to their teachings if they could see it.
The mind is a tool, that tends to dominate a person. The mind is not the person. If only you could blow it ! :-)
Kids raised by apes may have the moral values of an ape. First of all - what do you know about the latter ? Are they worse than yours !? And second - kids raised by humans, should have the moral values of their parents. And the latter should have theirs through their life experience and that of their parents. A little birs watches its mother to learn to fly. Doesn't read it in a book.
The moral values are pretty much the same in all religions (few exceptions) and go around the two versions of the Gold Law, which is also universal (not Christina for sure): Do to the others, what you would have done to you (or the reversed with "don't/don't") => hence don't kill, don't steal, don't cheat etc. You are happy. Society is happy. Sit in the lawn if you can survive. Most of us have to work.
You don't need the dogma of Paul and the contemporary Paulinism (why they call it Christianity again?) and St. Irenaues (who himself by the way, claimed Jesus lived to an old age. Weird statement from the guy who created more or less the Dogma). You need openness to the people around you. Which starts by dropping classifications based on race, nationality, religion, sex preferences etc.
You need to be awake, EVEN if you sleep all day long. Awareness is not equal to not sleeping!
I dare only hope you've heard the concept of Wu Wei, though I see from your questions you have not understood it, if you've had.
You wouldn't be asking then.
Then again, my daughter at 3.5 years asks lots of questions, cause she is still pure and empty page. Unfortunately, we fill in the pages pretty fast and don't want to add anything different after that.
with my best feelings,
evgenyPosted by evZENy on 2005-06-09 09:25:02

"Lefty is a bitch. He takes it on the chin. That’s my tag" [sic] Posted by Ryan Conover on June 8, 2005 at 2:20 AM
First of all Ryan, who said I'm a he! Once again, Ryan confirms that there are only 2 kinds of conservatives: idiots and crooks.Posted by Lefty on 2005-06-08 18:34:40

Yes, flying the flag at half mast outside a post office because the death of the Pope is odd... is it illegal? What would you charge someone with who committed this offense? Hmmmmmmmm........Posted by Ryan Conover on 2005-06-08 16:30:45

So if moral values come from within, two children raised by apes would know that violence is a bad idea and stealing is wrong? Way to spell "beliefs" Einstein. Why pick anything at all? Why do anything? Why work? Why learn? Why not just sit on the lawn staring at the sky until you fall asleep everyday for the rest of your life? Are we really even here? Did I just blow your mind? Put down the bowl for a second evZENy.Posted by Ryan Conover on 2005-06-08 16:28:39

Why religion at all !?
What ever name you give it, it devides people - does not unite them.
One is born without it.
If only people looked better at the origin of their believes....
All the books, stories and wars...
Why pick the one but not the others !? Especially when all of them are not complete.
And again - why pick anything at all !?
Moral values come from within. If one needs books to learn them that would suggest the parents wasted their own lives :-)Posted by evZENy on 2005-06-08 14:04:30

"One would think that Catholicism had become our state religion." Indeed. After I took a two-week vacation, upon driving back home I saw a post office with its flag at half-mast. Desperate to find out which state leader had died, I quickly turned on the radio and tried to find the news. Nobody had altered their programming, it seems, to carry extra news, but after listening long enough to an all-news station I found out that the Pope had died two days before. Flying the flag at half-mast at a Post Office because the Pope had died? Not official, not sanctioned, and not legal. It was enough to put me off my supper.Posted by F. Hudkins on 2005-06-08 14:02:46

Lefty is a bitch. He takes it on the chin. That's my tagPosted by Ryan Conover on 2005-06-08 00:20:59

Sorry to come to the discussion so late. Try this on for size: It's not about religion, it's about authority. The philosophical divide I pick up is between those who respect wisdom and those whose higest loyalty is to...loyalty. A solid majority of Catholics polled said they did not agree with the choice of Pope. And a majority of Catholics polled also agreed that they would be loyal to the Pope. On the third hand, a solid majority didn't think they should follow Catholic teaching on birth control and the role of women.
So, there you have it, and I think it's representative of a large faction of voters today--they worship authority. Whoever is most confident, nay arrogant, gets their loyalty. This country is well on the way to authoritarian rule and so long as people are intimidated (the post-9/11 GOP/fundie agenda) against questioning authority, we'll continue that direction. pLUS, more terrorism, more auithoritarianism. Our so-called leaders are in fact promoting the fondest desires of Islamic extremists when they reduce or liberties in the name of protecting our freedom.
"Obey my rules or else": Who preaches that, the Taliban or Focus on the Family...or both? 1984 is on the way, it's just a little behind schedule.Posted by W Action on 2005-06-06 13:20:11

shorter version of campesino's post;
"WHINE"Posted by luminous beauty on 2005-06-06 05:50:41

"I read though the original article here again and I have to say it is just one long whine. Shorter version of this article: How DARE the media cover people that I disagree with!!"
Posted by Campesino on June 4, 2005 at 7:18 PM
No Camposino, you missed the point. It's more like, take your stinking religion and keep it to yourself. Your proslytizing is vulgar, despicable and offensive. Get it now?Posted by Lefty on 2005-06-06 03:43:10

Jeremiah, Your post perfectly illustrates the problem with the insistence of people in the US that your country was founded on Christian principles. Which ones exactly? And which branch of Christianity were those principles referred to for approval as to their orthodoxy as 'Christian'?
As for 'under God'. The problem is that just saying something is so, doesn't thereby make it so. I know that 'under God' was a form of words inserted into the pledge of allegiance some time in the 1950s, presumably as a response to some aspect of the then hysteria about communism. However you see, not all citizens of the US are Christians, and indeed every Christian sect has its own view as to what 'Christianity' means and the problem for the US and unfortunately the rest of us on planet earth, is that faith admits of no argument based on reason, and as such, there can be no proper democratic debate where appeals to reason fall on deaf ears tout court. The problem with appeals to God as a basis for nation building or patriotism is that it leads eventually to the kind of political institutions that were common in 17th century Europe, and more recently illustrated by the taliban, and frankly, I always thought that the US was founded in part as an effort to move on from the civil strife that confessional polities create.Posted by Jane Doe on 2005-06-05 21:59:25

I read all the posts that accrue when religion is the topic of an article, such as this one about news media and the increasing Jesus-quotient but also any other, and I see a microcosm of American religious history. Endless arguing about who Jesus was, what Jesus did, what Jesus REALLY meant when he taught, what are the appropriate beliefs about Jesus, what would Jesus do...
I wonder, is there another society on Earth that so relentlessly argues and fights about the prophet (or savior) they're attached to, instead of treating other people as though they were as valuable as we consider ourselves to be, as per the central message.
Even an atheist could understand an idea like that, but perhaps it's too simplistic to sustain continued interest.Posted by Kuya on 2005-06-05 07:24:04

Jeremiah, FYI, The quotes I posted were found on many different web sites after many hours of searching. Not all sites have the same indicia of reliability.Posted by Lefty on 2005-06-04 22:56:03

I read though the original article here again and I have to say it is just one long whine. Shorter version of this article: How DARE the media cover people that I disagree with!!Posted by Campesino on 2005-06-04 17:18:02

Fair enough. =)Posted by Ryan Conover on 2005-06-04 11:00:26

Ryan;
We do know a lot about messianic mythology and religious thought and sentiment of the times. Much is known about the development of Christianity, including the discoveries at Nag Hammadi and Qumran. Modern linguistic analysis of the Gospels and Epistles and comparison of contemporary literature reveals a great deal about their editorial production and intent. Placed in appropriate historical, archeological and literary context a picture emerges much more consistent with the ideas of Albert Schweitzer than not. Not at all mere speculation, though much room for speculation exists.
In the end, if the story of Yeshua of Nazareth represents for you the fullfillment of messianic prophesy, then for you and those who believe likewise, it does. This really doesn't have much to do with historical fact, but is a particular religious view with particular mythological meaning. The metaphysical facts of that mythology do not depend on being consistent with objective reality as much as on how they guide you to live your life consistent with the ethical sense with which they are imbued. That's my, admittedly only human, understanding.
That your beliefs give your life meaning, I do not wish to in any way belittle or disregard. I'm merely trying to discern the essential from the non-essential. It isn't easy.Posted by luminous beauty on 2005-06-04 09:50:49

To Proud Athiest,thank you, I thought that I was the only one who saw that flaw in the christian belief structure.Posted by mike on 2005-06-04 08:24:36

To "god"?? I do see a lot of christian pedophiles.Posted by mike on 2005-06-04 08:05:07

Since we know very little about the historical Jesus why would you expect me to believe anything said about him contrary to his position as the messiah? Remember, we know little about the historical Jesus,anything aside from what we know through Christianity and the Gospels is pure speculation.Posted by Ryan Conover on 2005-06-03 20:20:11

Ryan;
I haven't missed much. I merely said that much injustice has been done in Jesus' name, I don't condone it.
Though I agree there most likely was an historical Jesus, very little is really known about him; nothing about virgin birth or resurrection or any of that miraculous stuff, really. The most you can say is there isn't any contravening proof. The same can be said for the Koran's view of Jesus.
As for the mythological Jesus and the foundational synchretism of the Christian religion, if you don't care to read the material, I can't force you to look. None but yourself can free your mind. You'll have to decide if seeking the truth will set you free. Calling it 'stupid' and 'muck' put out by 'idiots' is pretty weak. One would think you find it threatening.
By pointing you to that site I was hoping to show you how unfair it is to go to a Christian denunciation of Islam and call it an objective view. Do you think maybe you've missed the point there?Posted by luminous beauty on 2005-06-03 17:33:42

The New Testament, which muslims will tell you is corrupted and if you ask for proof will only tell you(we know the truth, you've been fooled), aside from the cricifixion was nowhere near as violent at the Koran. If Jesus came to bring the sword, and yet asks us to turn the other cheek, and love those who hate you, do you think maybe you've missed the point there? Why would Jesus come and tell us to love our neighbor, then mohammed comes 500-someodd years later and basically says, "Cut everyones hands and head off..." Does that make any sense? And it's historically accepted that Jesus existed, so don't ask me to wade through that muck put out by some idiot. I've seen it, its stupid.Posted by Ryan Conover on 2005-06-03 13:14:27

I don't mind if the Christian Right wants to air their programming, but then I want to see more Pagan programming. What REALLY galls me is the bits and pieces I saw of that Armageddon series reinforcing all the misconceptions people already have of Pagans. Just when things were starting to turn around and we were becoming a little more mainstream, Christianity ONCE AGAIN has to put its propoganda out there. I don't mind if they air their shows - as long as they don't lie. Or is that something Jesus would do?Posted by Brighid Rose on 2005-06-03 10:47:05

Jeremiah;
Your 'quote' is a paraphrase. A paraphrase whose sense on its face is a distortion made with the intent of supporting your belief. If you are pushing anything, it is very weakly with a big dollop of intellectual dishonesty. Just my observation. You can take it or leave it. I won't lose any sl.....zzz.Posted by luminous beauty on 2005-06-03 06:53:58

Lefty,
Its funny that you threw the quote I found out, and then went on to use a bunch of quotes from the website I quoted to try and make your point. I simply quoted what someone else said, I’m not pushing my beliefs on anyone. You can take it or leave it, I wont lose any sleep over it…Posted by Jeremiah on 2005-06-03 05:45:45

Ryan;
If you liked answering islam, you'll love jesusneverexisted.com. What? No?
You might try reading what Muslims themselves say about their religion. Islam 101.com is useful. If that's too much for you to bear, you could read Sir Richard Burton's "Pilgrimage to Mecca" or D.E. Lawrence's "Five Pillars of Wisdom". What proselytizing Christians say doesn't count for much. Do you think you could find a favorable treatment of Buddhism on a Christian site? The Bible (which is holy text in Islam) is full of blood and war, too. Jesus said "I bring not peace, but a sword". That phrase has been used throughout Christian history to justify endless atrocities for which Christians seldom, in my experience, take any responsibility.Posted by luminous beauty on 2005-06-03 04:41:22

Jeremiah said:
"However, it is important to note that all of the Founding Fathers followed Christian doctrine for rules on how to conduct ones self, for it was so intertwined with the society. Benjamin Franklin probably explains it best when he, to paraphrase, said that although he is unsure of whether God exists or not, he felt it was better to believe in Christianity and the Christian God than not to, for the Christian teachings prevented moral anarchy. Thus, our nation was founded on Christian principles because the Founding Generation recognized the value in them to create a moral, virtuous society."
Jeremiah,
That's B.S. Who do you think wrote the bible? God? Where do you think the 10 commandments came from? God? Did God create man in his own image (what amazing arrogance), or did man create God in his own image?
Let me suggest something to you, Jeremiah. The image and the will, the word of God is utterly incomprehensible to man or woman, and is contained in no book written by any man or woman.
In the mean time, you would be well advised to just be good, to the extent you are able to comprehend what that means, (the 10 commandments written by men would be a good guide) and stop trying to peddle your religion to others. We ain't buyin' it.Posted by Lefty on 2005-06-03 04:34:47

Hey God!
You call it a gift. I call it a disease. You've read the maxim: Those who forget their own history are condemned to repeat it.
Here's some history for you:
“Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity.” -Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782
“As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation. But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legaends, has been blended with both Jewish and Chiistian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed.” -John Adams in a letter to F.A. Van der Kamp, Dec. 27, 1816
“I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved--the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!” -John Adams in a letter to Thomas Jefferson
“History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes.” -Thomas Jefferson letter to Alexander von Humboldt, Dec. 6, 1813.
“Creeds have been the bane of the Christian church ... made of Christendom a slaughter-house.” - Thomas Jefferson to Benjamin Waterhouse, Jun. 26, 1822
“Whence arose all the horrid assassinations of whole nations of men, women, and infants, with which the Bible is filled; and the bloody persecutions, and tortures unto death, and religious wars, that since that time have laid Europe in blood and ashes; whence arose they, but from the impious thing called religion. and this mostrous belief that God has spoken to man?” - Thomas PainePosted by Lefty on 2005-06-03 04:18:45

Here, this is not where I got my information from, I had to read the texts, but this site has some straight shooting commentary and to my knowledge isn't too fanatical. The information on it is correct.
http://answering-islam.org/
I'm not trying to spread hatred or even disdain for muslims, but you might as well know a little more about the faith before you proclaim it to be peaceful and full of mercy.Posted by Ryan Conover on 2005-06-02 20:07:13

Hey luminous beauty, islam is a religion devoted to peace and mercy? You obviously have not read the Koran or any related muslim holy texts. I've never read anything that lacks compassion and prescribes war more than the Koran. Seriously, I'm not just being prejudiced, read it.Posted by Ryan Conover on 2005-06-02 20:01:42

Patrick- well i did my homework and found this:
Answer
To plainly say they were "Christians" is a bit misleading. Some of them were, but others were deitists, or believed in one spirtual being (God if you will) which had very little to do with governing their lives on earth.
However, it is important to note that all of the Founding Fathers followed Christian doctrine for rules on how to conduct ones self, for it was so intertwined with the society. Benjamin Franklin probably explains it best when he, to paraphrase, said that although he is unsure of whether God exists or not, he felt it was better to believe in Christianity and the Christian God than not to, for the Christian teachings prevented moral anarchy. Thus, our nation was founded on Christian principles because the Founding Generation recognized the value in them to create a moral, virtuous society.
web site: http://www.faqfarm.com/Q/What_religion_were_the_founding_fathersPosted by Jeremiah on 2005-06-02 15:41:10

god;
I think you should consider that the majority of mainstream devout and pious Muslims are no more genuinely represented by extremists than mainstream Christian Churches are. Islam is the faith of over a billion living human beings, living in a day-to-day continuity of 1400yrs. of history and tradition and spiritual practice devoted to peace, justice, mercy and humble submission to the ineffable will of God, and yes, gratitude for God's infinite love. Islam's worthiness as a world religion is not really a matter of your opinion.
It is always regrettable when religionists allow themselves to lend their services to the demonizing of the Other. It is the mark of a great spiritual failure. Verdad, Jesus advised us to love even our enemies, no?
But then in times of war, all the bugs crawl out of the baseboards.Posted by luminous beauty on 2005-06-02 15:36:14

Jeremiah this nation was not founded on christianity. You have been successfully brain washed. Go do your homework.Posted by Patrick on 2005-06-02 10:24:11

GrayArea, you are correct, it is a gift.
The message of Christiantity is one of love and hope. It teaches its believers to be kind and compassionate to **all** others. It even teaches one to be non-judgemental.
But i hear those who say that Christians are not these things, and not only that, but they are mean and cruel. This is also true.
But the issue here is not that Christians are perfect and in harmony with their Creator, but rather what they are taught they *should* be (check out virtually any mainstream Christian Church in the US, for example). While all fall short of this, it is nonetheless important that they strive for worthy goals.
While it is certainly true muslims are not better or worse intrinsically than Christians, muslim goals have been horribly corrupted. They are taught to hate (even to the point of killing infidels, e.g., see Rushdie). Hatred is evil and worse, it tends to destroy both the hated and the hater. Thus these poor folks can be convinced to do any number of evil deeds, and even believe that it is in the name of God. This is very sad.
But don't take me at my word. Look for yourself. See how many mainstream Christian Churchs advocate killing people. Find out how many celebrate the loss of life in Iraq. Research how many aid and train suicide bombers.
Then do the same for the muslim side of the equation. I am confident you will discern some very blatent differences in their messages. I am also hopeful that one day a worthy Muslim religion will come to be. But that will be in the distant future. . . (and perhaps nurtured in the US)Posted by God on 2005-06-02 10:20:41

So at what point did Christianity evolve out of corruption? The principles of Christianity are no more or less worthy than those of any other faith. They are all in place to reinforce some stable view of society. Depending on what you are predisposed to believe, the Bible is quite intolerant of non-believers. This is where the likes of Eric Rudolph emerge. He was a lone actor, but guess what. He had many supporters.
I am amused when members of one religious faith pass judgement on members of another. There is incredible irony in watching a person say "That which I believe on faith is undeniably true while that which you believe on faith is undeniably false..." I mean, how do you do that with a straight face, God? It must be a gift.Posted by GrayArea on 2005-06-02 07:51:49

"Please don’t condemn a religion by the actions of a small number of fanatics, it only exposes your ignorance."
I would never do that. Do you consider the number of Islamic folks out there declaring jihad and strapping on suicide vests to be small? Ululating in the streets when thousands are murdered (a particularly offensive behaviour)? Rioting because a book is alleged to have been desecrated? The list goes on and on and on. . .
To understand why the current version of Islam is evil, you only have to look at what it proclaims. To see why the current version of Christianity is good, ditto. One is a religion of love, the other hate. This is not all that subtle. And will hoefully improve as time goes on (e.g., contrast modern Christiantity with its middle ages corrupt versions).Posted by God on 2005-06-02 06:35:15

Read your money - discard it if it offends you. I have an address you can send the stuff to, where it will be suitably "disposed" of.Posted by inGodWeTrust on 2005-06-02 06:19:18

Someone above mentioned the idiot box in their comment. Do they refer to the president or the television. In light of today's politics and messia programing, I, for a majority of one, cannot tell the difference. If the religious right, [RR vs. SS] tolerate the Prysb.,(sp), the Anglicians, and the Methodists(Pres Bush's Church) as the anti-Christ(s), is Bush the real anti what ever???Posted by Camellion on 2005-06-02 00:17:18

Actually this country was founded on Christian beliefs so it is a Nation under God. Saying that I do agree that most Christians in America are hypocrites and give a false view of the bible. The bible doesn’t say gays are going to hell! Being gay is just as big of a sin as lying! A sin is a sin is a sin… the only thing that can keep you from the Lord is blasphemy witch is rejecting Christ. Jesus came to befriend sinners not turn his back on them or judge them. And no Jesus is not a democrat or a republican he is not political! Yes I am a Christian, no I’m not gay, and I am sorry for the way Christians hear in America portray Jesus.Posted by Jeremiah on 2005-06-01 23:46:45

Some Jesus-based news I'd love to hear would be that Christians had decided to put their efforts into compassionate action on behalf of suffering, troubled people, putting the love for one's neighbor as oneself into practice as a gesture of their faith.
I know they're all around, met dozens myself, in places all over the planet. Odd that they don't get more airtime, if Christ-ifying the news is the goal.
Instead it's always the "political" ones that get the camera, the haranguers and culture-warriors with the blarney touch, able to motivate viewers' emotions with their words. Even an unchurched skeptic like me can see there's selective reporting in hand. Could it be that the agenda is not a religious one, but a political one?
Nah, couldn't be...
Yeah, is!!!Posted by Kuya on 2005-06-01 22:50:57

Famous Native American quotes: Crazy Horse:"The only good Christian is a dead Christian", Sitting Bull:"We crucified Custer at the Little Big Horn", Dustin Hoffman as "Little Big Man": "Jesus hasn't come back yet 'cause he's dead!", Cleveland Indians announcer:"Jesus Alou is now playing right field"...Posted by Mark Cartwright on 2005-06-01 20:25:35

Any day now I expect to hear of an initiative by the to repeal Article VI of the US Constitution - The part that states that "...no religious test shall *ever* be required as a qualification to any office or any public trust under the United States".Posted by Recovered Fundie on 2005-06-01 18:30:59

Before God supposedly creates a human soul, that soul did not exist in any subjective, experiential way. Then, having been created, souls (living as mortal humans) have experiences, both positive and negative. But these experiences, Christianity tells us, are just the briefest blip in our eternal soul's existence, which we proceed to take part in after our mortal lives end. Some souls, however, will doubtlessly fail to accept God's one entrance-condition, and so they will be excluded. Since God is supposedly all-powerful and all knowing, there is no "if" involved in this situation: The question has already been answered for Him before He even creates the soul. Certainly a soul's path to damnation could not possibly surprise God, so why would an all-loving God allow a soul to come into being when he knew, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that it was to be damned?Posted by Proud Atheist on 2005-06-01 17:20:20

That's my point, Ryan, the fanatical Islamic extremists that strap on bombs have something wrong with them, not the Islamic faith.Posted by Proud Vet. on 2005-06-01 15:20:20

Nope, not a lot of Christian suicide bombers. Surely, having God on your side means not having to strap a bomb to your chest. In fact, being able to kill with impunity from many miles away must be our reward for being faithful. It's amazing the connections you can make when you assume you have God's favor in everything you do. In this way, every action you take or every value you have carries its own endorsement from the almighty. How incredibly tidy! =)Posted by GrayArea on 2005-06-01 12:24:31

Think about the term 'fanatical Christian'. That in itself implies that they are not the norm. For someone to be such a fanatic there is probably more wrong with them than even meets the eye. If they weren't fanatical about Christianity, what would they be fanatical about? Something else is my guess. Would it cause them to blow up abortion clinics? Who knows...Posted by Ryan Conover on 2005-06-01 12:17:20

Satan made himself look like a peacock, a serpent and now a president. Maybe if Americans stopped watching the idiot box so much they'd be able to tell the difference between good and evil.Posted by theloneous on 2005-06-01 09:42:26

No god, you don't see many Christian suicide bombers, but I have seen fanatical Christians blow up family planning clinics and murder doctors that perform abortions in this country. And isn't capital punishment a large part of the current administration's agenda? An administration who has claimed Christ as one of their own. Please don't condemn a religion by the actions of a small number of fanatics, it only exposes your ignorance.Posted by Proud Vet. on 2005-06-01 09:26:54

"Christianity,Islam,what’s the difference?"
Don't see alot of Christian suicide bombers, for one!
And while many of all faiths do not meet the goals of their faiths, the goals are very important nonetheless (Christianity wins over Islam overwhelmingly here).
The pretext of the article is rather lame. People who want detailed information are much better off with written material. Streaming media is useful for giving overviews, or the occasional documentary, but not much else.Posted by God on 2005-06-01 08:52:08

May I recommend as required reading for anyone of early teen intelligence level or greater, Carl Sagan's "The Demon Haunted World", published by Headline books in 1997. Truly an outstanding primer on developing a mentality that preserves healthy skepticism without eroding into cynical rejection of wonderment. His baloney detection kit is a delight, how to spot BS (in the speech of others as well as one's own speech) in a few easily understood steps. Plus, an eloquent argument for the assertion of educated reason and logical discourse as the only defense against the irrationality and magical thinking (which is largely linked to an emotional reaction of fear of death) that periodically grips societies. Divine!
Yes, I think irrationality is spreading in American society.Posted by Kuya on 2005-06-01 08:39:24

I posted this on another thread but in light of every thread becomming a religious dispute I think it suits this thread as well...
What ever happened to a separation of church and state in this country? How has every political debate become a theological debate? Didn't Thomas Jefferson say, "I cannot give up my guidance to the magistrates, because he knows no more the way to heaven than I do,& is less concerned to direct me right than I am to go right."? Our founding fathers knew the importance of the separation of church and state to the point that it had been written in the Bill of Rights. Jefferson went on to say, "In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection of his own.".
As Americans, we should be outraged whenever religion is brought up in political context because it is a direct conflict to our system of government on a fundamental level. Instead this co-mingling of such a huge conflict of interest has become flavor-of-the-day. This isn't "America" anymore. We live in a time akin to the 1500's when the popes ran the show and sold indulgences to the peasants. These indulgences were a ruse, fabricated by the church for the sole purpose of raising money. If anyone on the Christian right would actually pick up a history book, instead of the Bible, you just might start to conclude that we are in at the start of reliving a very dark time in history, where logic stops and fanaticism starts. If the End of Times is realized in our lifetime, what do you think the wealthy fundamentalist Christian politicians will have to say for themselves when Jesus returns? Didn't He say that a camel will have an easier time passing through the eye of a needle than a wealthy man will have passing through the pearly gates?Posted by Proud Vet. on 2005-06-01 07:00:28

PS: Ryan, here's something I posted on another thread:
Let me provide you with some guidance from some, much wiser than you or I, who lived in a time closer to the majority of the crimes against humanity committed by Christians, in the name of Christ.
“Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity.” -Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782
“As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation. But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legaends, has been blended with both Jewish and Chiistian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed.” -John Adams in a letter to F.A. Van der Kamp, Dec. 27, 1816
“I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved--the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!” -John Adams in a letter to Thomas Jefferson
“History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes.” -Thomas Jefferson letter to Alexander von Humboldt, Dec. 6, 1813.
“Creeds have been the bane of the Christian church ... made of Christendom a slaughter-house.” - Thomas Jefferson to Benjamin Waterhouse, Jun. 26, 1822
“Whence arose all the horrid assassinations of whole nations of men, women, and infants, with which the Bible is filled; and the bloody persecutions, and tortures unto death, and religious wars, that since that time have laid Europe in blood and ashes; whence arose they, but from the impious thing called religion. and this mostrous belief that God has spoken to man?” - Thomas Paine
BTW, I couldn't find a quote concerning the sluaghter of over 1/2 Irish Catholics by the English Puritan Lord Cromwell.Posted by Lefty on 2005-06-01 05:42:28

The Pope's death was important news, yes, but it's something that's so huge that it's not going to go unnoticed, especially by those who the news hit the hardest--devout Catholics, who I'm sure heard more about it in their services than on any news channel.Posted by David on 2005-06-01 05:29:33

"Fine enough if this is not a nation under God, it is not a nation under only you either, so show a little respect a$$hole. Don’t expect to be taken seriously when you down other’s beliefs so freely. That said, I voted for Gore, and then Kerry, I cannot stand republicans, just an FYI. Also yes, overall in a world perspective, the death of the pope IS more important than Delay’s ethics violations… sorry polito-phile."
Posted by Ryan Conover on May 31, 2005 at 11:57 PM
Hey Ryan, why should anyone show respect for a Christian when Christians show no respect for others. A basic tenet of Christianity is to spread the word, meaning go around telling everyone else that their religion is wrong and that if they don't convert and accept Jesus Christ as their personal savior, they will spend eternity in hell - the most vulgar, despicable religious practice ever invented.
Who's the a$$hole, Ryan?Posted by Lefty on 2005-06-01 05:24:44

The Pope's death was important to CATHOLICS. But to me being a feminist Protestant, it was just another early morning to snooze through. lol
Btw--screw those corporate-driven and run networks. SUPPORT INDIE MEDIA with all the spare dollar$ you can. Keep investigative reporting by real human reporters and intelligent writing alive!Posted by Lori on 2005-05-31 23:18:49

Fine enough if this is not a nation under God, it is not a nation under only you either, so show a little respect a$$hole. Don't expect to be taken seriously when you down other's beliefs so freely. That said, I voted for Gore, and then Kerry, I cannot stand republicans, just an FYI. Also yes, overall in a world perspective, the death of the pope IS more important than Delay's ethics violations... sorry polito-phile.Posted by Ryan Conover on 2005-05-31 21:57:58

Jesus would never be crucified today.
He would not live that long.
It appears that the Middle East did accept the rule of law at one time.Posted by jh lerch on 2005-05-31 21:20:43

Christianity,Islam,what's the difference?Do Christians strive to live by the tenets of their beliefs? Do Muslims?"True believers" pick and choose which parts of their religions to follow.According to what's convenient for them.Or what helps to keep them in power.The inquisition,slavery,racism,bigotry against gays,the crusades,jihad,holy war,the list goes on.Jesus was crucified by the official religion of the time,and would be crucified today by the official religion of the time.Make no mistake about that.Christian fundimentalists and Muslim fundimentalists in practice are the most un spiritual people on the face of the earth.Posted by mike on 2005-05-31 19:47:51

What we desperately need now is politician who stands up and says :
"America is not a Christian nation".
America is not a Jewish nation.
America is not a Muslim nation.
America is not a Buddhist nation.
America is not a Christian nation.
Can you imagine a Demoplican saying that?
Certainly not a Republicrat?
Can you imagine Falwell or Robertson calling for the murder of a politician who did say that?
The Taleban is in firm control.Posted by John Francis Lee on 2005-05-31 17:56:59

Hi,
here in New Zealand the leader of our country [Prime Minister] is an atheist as is the leader of the opposition.Now that is something that could never ever happen in the good old u.s of a
Kind Regards
GordonPosted by Gordon Callaghan on 2005-05-31 17:06:12